Bryan wrote:
> > > Er, scratch this. Blows up if the sub isn't prototyped. A much
> > > *better* way is to make the prototype of any sub a property
> > > (trait) of that sub. We can always query for a property.
> >
> > This is possible now:
> > $foo = sub ($) { print "hello wor
On Tuesday 04 September 2001 11:17 am, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> > Er, scratch this. Blows up if the sub isn't prototyped. A
> > much *better* way is to make the prototype of any sub a
> > property (trait) of that sub. We can always query for a
> > property.
>
> This is possible now:
>
> $foo = s
From: Bryan C. Warnock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> On Monday 03 September 2001 11:56 pm, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> > The third value is a "peek" value. Do the runtime
> > checking, but don't do any magic variable stuff. As a
> > matter of fact, don't run any user-code at all. Simply
> > re
On Monday 03 September 2001 11:56 pm, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> The third value is a "peek" value. Do the runtime checking, but don't do
> any magic variable stuff. As a matter of fact, don't run any user-code at
> all. Simply return a true or false value if the arguments *would* match.
> (This
> > Are prototypes going to be checked at runtime now?
>
> For methods, at least. Dunno about subs, that's Larry's call. I
> could make a good language case for and against it. It adds
> overhead on sub calls, which is a bad thing generally.
I would strongly like to see a guarante
> But since the current prototyping system... has a highly positive
> pressure gradient compared to the surrounding air,
Well...I think it's more a problem of "I do no' thin' dat word means
wha' you thin' it means".
People want prototypes to be parameter type specifiers,
when they're actua
At 11:47 PM 9/3/2001 -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
>"Bryan C. Warnock" wrote:
> > {
> > my $a = sub ($$) { code };
> > gork($a);
> > }
> >
> > sub gork {
> > my ($a) = shift;
> > $a->(@some_list); # <- Here
> > }
> >
> > The reason prototypes aren't checked at "Here" is because there real
A few more ideas to put down, lest I lay wake all night, thoughts churning...
One.
Presumably, there will be an op for the actual calling of the subroutine.
That op can take an (extra) argument, with one of three values, that the
prototype checking can get to.
The first value indicates that th
"Bryan C. Warnock" wrote:
> {
> my $a = sub ($$) { code };
> gork($a);
> }
>
> sub gork {
> my ($a) = shift;
> $a->(@some_list); # <- Here
> }
>
> The reason prototypes aren't checked at "Here" is because there really
> isn't a way to know what the prototype was.
Um, that's not
On Monday 03 September 2001 10:46 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 10:32 PM 9/3/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> >On Monday 03 September 2001 10:27 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > >To me, that seems only a language decision. This could certainly
> > > > handle that.
> > >
> > > Ah, but calling in
At 10:32 PM 9/3/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Monday 03 September 2001 10:27 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >To me, that seems only a language decision. This could certainly handle
> > >that.
> >
> > Ah, but calling in the first way has two PMCs in as parameters, while the
> > second has o
On Monday 03 September 2001 10:27 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >To me, that seems only a language decision. This could certainly handle
> >that.
>
> Ah, but calling in the first way has two PMCs in as parameters, while the
> second has only one. Potentially at least. A world of difference there.
A
At 10:17 PM 9/3/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Monday 03 September 2001 09:30 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > A clever idea, and one I'd not though of. That's probably the best way to
> > do it. Has some other issues, like do we allow prototypes like:
> >
> >sub foo ($$) {};
> >
> > to be
On Monday 03 September 2001 09:30 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> A clever idea, and one I'd not though of. That's probably the best way to
> do it. Has some other issues, like do we allow prototypes like:
>
>sub foo ($$) {};
>
> to be called as:
>
>foo(@bar)
>
> if @bar has two elements in it?
At 10:11 PM 9/2/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Sunday 02 September 2001 07:49 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> > > Are prototypes going to be checked at runtime now?
> >
> > For methods, at least. Dunno about subs, that's Larry's call. I could make
On Sunday 02 September 2001 07:49 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> > Are prototypes going to be checked at runtime now?
>
> For methods, at least. Dunno about subs, that's Larry's call. I could make
> a good language case for and against it. It adds overhead
On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> Are prototypes going to be checked at runtime now?
For methods, at least. Dunno about subs, that's Larry's call. I could make
a good language case for and against it. It adds overhead on sub calls,
which is a bad thing generally. (I'd be OK with the
On Sunday 02 September 2001 08:18 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 07:47:37PM -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> > Are prototypes going to be checked at runtime now?
> >
> > The following parses, but doesn't do anything, including warn.
> >
> > my $a = sub ($) { print };
>
> Wa
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 07:47:37PM -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> Are prototypes going to be checked at runtime now?
>
> The following parses, but doesn't do anything, including warn.
>
> my $a = sub ($) { print };
Warning because you said you take an argument and then did nothing
with it...
19 matches
Mail list logo
