Re: Idea: infir types of constants

To me the foo looks like a template sub and I wonder how it is instanciated with different types. Since type parameters are provided with [] it should be foo[Int], foo[Str] and the like. I wonder further if that could also be written foo of Str like with Array of Int etc. my foo of Int &intfo

Re: Idea: infir types of constants

HaloO, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: our ::T sub foo (T $a, T $b) without needing to introduce a new twigil syntax for type variables. My reading as well. But I would write it sub foo (::T $a, T $b --> T) for better indicating that ::T is taken from the parameters. (Although I would won

Re: Idea: infir types of constants

On Apr 13, 2008, at 2:02 , John M. Dlugosz wrote: In Perl 6, I think you would have to arrange to write the return type later rather than sooner to do this: sub foo (::T $a, T $b) is of T and writing it the other way around would violate the one-pass parsing. Just from looking at thi

Re: Idea: infir types of constants

I'm thinking that if strong typing is enabled, mixing untyped and typed things will cause warnings or errors that need not be there. I'm thinking that 'constant' is more special than other variables, and that the formal description of strong typing and static types should say that the compiler

Re: Idea: infir types of constants

John M. Dlugosz wrote: > Just surfing, I noticed something about the "D" programming language: > > " > The types of constants need not be specified explicitly as the compiler > infers their types from > the right-hand sides of assignments. > > const