At 5:36 PM -0600 5/31/07, David Green wrote:
On 5/29/07, Larry Wall wrote:
In any case, the Huffman coding is probably right because you want
to declare Any parameters more often than you want to talk about any
possible kind of Object, I suspect.
Are Objects really Everything? What about nati
On 5/29/07, Larry Wall wrote:
Note that "any" is considered a singular noun in English,
I started to say, "Except when it means 'all'", but when used that
way, it still would mean "all" in the singular sense. But it gives
me an excuse to point out that "any" can be ambiguous in English;
it'
Larry Wall writes:
> ... I'm not too worried about the counterintuitiveness of it, by and
> large. It's much like that little embarrassing problem in physics
> that a GUT is neither as grand nor as unified as a TOE. :)
>
> Hmm, maybe we should just rename Object to something more generic.
Nah,
At 4:40 PM -0700 5/29/07, Larry Wall wrote:
Hmm, maybe we should just rename Object to something more generic.
There are plenty of candidates:
Top
Idea
Noun
Item
Proto
Thing
Notion
Concept
Subject
Reality
Invocant
Universal
EveryThing
Abstr
> Well, yes, "Everything is an Object" is the politically correct mantra. :)
True, but junctions aren't usually in the scope of CS PC...
OK, so let me see if I can wrap a conceptualization around this.
Logically, the type "Object" is itself a junction, that of all
possible types, while "Any" me
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 06:46:21PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: My counterintuition just went off again. The more restrictive type is
: called "Any"? Object includes junctions?
Well, yes, "Everything is an Object" is the politically correct mantra. :)
And in Perl 6, "Any" does not really mean
My counterintuition just went off again. The more restrictive type is
called "Any"? Object includes junctions?
On 5/29/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Author: larry
Date: Tue May 29 14:18:27 2007
New Revision: 14407
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
Clarificati
