On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
: We haven't solved the problem of instance methods that want to
: reject class invocants at compile time. Though I suppose explicitly
: declaring the type of the invocant would have that effect. I'm sure
: there are some who would argue (and I might be one
On 2002-10-14 at 19:58:50, Piers Cawley wrote:
> I would expect Class to inherit from Object (along with everything
> else). It might be worth looking at a Smalltalk image or two at this
> point...
You might want to look at _Putting_Metaclasses_To_Work_ by Danforth and
Forman - or at Ruby, which f
On Monday, October 14, 2002, at 11:57 AM, Trey Harris wrote:
>> class SomeClass {
>> cmethod class_method {...} # via a keyword
>> method instance_method {...} # via another keyword
>> sub dont_care_method {...} # check it yourself, as
Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If every Object happens to implement the Class interface, merely
>> declaring the invocant as a Class would presumably have this effect,
>> whether or not MD was in effect. I don't know whether that's a goo
In a message dated Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro writes:
> So if the first two should be shorter than the third, one way to do
> that would be something like:
>
> class SomeClass {
> cmethod class_method {...} # via a keyword
> method instance_method {
On Monday, October 14, 2002, at 10:28 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
> And I should point out that this approach would be good not just for
> type purity, but because it optimizes for the common case. Class
> methods
> are much rarer than instance methods. And
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
: We haven't solved the problem of instance methods that want to
: reject class invocants at compile time. Though I suppose explicitly
: declaring the type of the invocant would have that effect. I'm sure
: there are some who would argue (and I might be one
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> : My temporary hack while writing the proto-recipes was that we'd
> have a
> : property that would simply declare a method to be a class method,
> but
> : I'm having a hard time coming up with an acceptable
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: My temporary hack while writing the proto-recipes was that we'd have a
: property that would simply declare a method to be a class method, but
: I'm having a hard time coming up with an acceptable name to suggest for it:
:
: method foo is class_
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Trey Harris wrote:
: I was going to say the same thing, but then I remembered that Perl 6
: methods, unlike the sub 'methods' in Perl 5, won't get the invocant as the
: first real argument--it will be the topic instead. And I don't think you
: can do multiple-dispatch on topi
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Piers Cawley wrote:
: I like that idea:
:
:class SomeClass {
: method class_method ( Class $class: ... ) { ... }
: method instance_method ( SomeClass $self : ... ) { ... }
: method dont_care_method ( $self : ... ) { ... }
:}
:
: Or
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Me wrote:
: I've looked before for discussion of the rationale behind
: introducing attr/has and failed to find it. I noticed you
: mention Zurich, so perhaps this decision followed from
: discussion in living color (as against b+w).
:
: Anyhow, what was deemed wrong with usi
> Nothing the matter with "our" for class attributes since they're
> already stored in the package if we follow Perl 5's lead. But using
> "my" for instance attributes is problematic if we allow a class to
> be reopened:
>
> class Blurfl {
> my $.foo;
> }
> ...
> class Blurfl is
I've looked before for discussion of the rationale behind
introducing attr/has and failed to find it. I noticed you
mention Zurich, so perhaps this decision followed from
discussion in living color (as against b+w).
Anyhow, what was deemed wrong with using my/our?
And...
> class Zap {
> my %.za
In a message dated Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Piers Cawley writes:
> I like that idea:
>
>class SomeClass {
> method class_method ( Class $class: ... ) { ... }
> method instance_method ( SomeClass $self : ... ) { ... }
> method dont_care_method ( $self : ... ) { ... }
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Me wrote:
> : We also need a signifier for class methods (assuming
> : a distinction is made).
> :
> : Perhaps one could use an initial cap to indicate a class
> : attribute/method:
> :
> : class foo {
> : my $bar;# my i
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Me wrote:
: We also need a signifier for class methods (assuming
: a distinction is made).
:
: Perhaps one could use an initial cap to indicate a class
: attribute/method:
:
: class foo {
: my $bar;# my is not used for attributes
: our $baz;# neither i
Trey Harris wrote:
>
> In a message dated Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Piers Cawley writes:
> > I like that idea:
> >
> >class SomeClass {
> > method class_method ( Class $class: ... ) { ... }
> > method instance_method ( SomeClass $self : ... ) { ... }
> > method dont_care_metho
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 16:40:04 -0700
: From: Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Subject: Draft Proposal: Declaring Classwide Attributes
:
: (Disclaimer: My purpose in proposing this is not to recommend it, but
: to document
19 matches
Mail list logo
