Luke Palmer wrote:
Everything that is a Num is a Complex right?
Not according to Liskov But this is one of the standard OO
>>paradoxes, and we're hoping roles are the way out of it.
Well, everything that is a Num is a Complex in a value-typed world,
which Num and Complex are in. I do
On 7/27/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 11:00:20AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
>> Everything that is a Num is a Complex right?
>
> Not according to Liskov. Num is behaving more like a constrained
> subtype of Complex as soon as you admit that "isa" is about both
HaloO Michele,
you wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, [ISO-8859-1] TSa wrote:
value to carry on a useless imaginary part. And
Complex should consistently return undef when compared
to other Nums or Complexes. And the Compare role
My 0.02+0.01i: in mathematics it is commonly used to write e.g. z<3
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, [ISO-8859-1] "TSa (Thomas Sandla?)" wrote:
value to carry on a useless imaginary part. And
Complex should consistently return undef when compared
to other Nums or Complexes. And the Compare role
My 0.02+0.01i: in mathematics it is commonly used to write e.g. z<3 to
mean "
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 11:00:20AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Let's say that Perl 6 does not provide a complex number class by
: default. How would you go about writing one? Well, let's do the
: standard Perl practice of making words that your users are supposed to
: say in their code roles.
:
HaloO,
Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
I've probably misunderstood you, but...:
role Complex does Object {...}
Num does Complex;
# That should work and DWYM, right?
My 0.02: Complex should provide e.g. a + that, when
called with two Nums, doesn't bother the return
value to carry on a use
On 7/27/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> > role Complex
> > does Object
> > contains Num
> > {...}
>
> I've probably misunderstood you, but...:
>
> role Complex does Object {...}
> Num does Complex;
> # That should work an
Hi,
Luke Palmer wrote:
> http://repetae.net/john/recent/out/supertyping.html
>
> This was a passing proposal to allow supertype declarations in
> Haskell. I'm referencing it here because it's something that I've had
> in the back of my mind for a while for Perl 6. I'm glad somebody else
> has t
[sorry Luke, I hit "Send" too soon]
On 7/27/05, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is probably a better word than "contains". I was thinking set
> > theory when I came up with that one.
What about "derives"?
Aankhen
http://repetae.net/john/recent/out/supertyping.html
This was a passing proposal to allow supertype declarations in
Haskell. I'm referencing it here because it's something that I've had
in the back of my mind for a while for Perl 6. I'm glad somebody else
has thought of it.
Something that is wor
10 matches
Mail list logo
