On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 08:46:06AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: If these are really postfix operators, then we can also write
:
: Foo .::{}
: Foo .::<>
: Foo .::()
But I don't think they can really be postfix. At least, ::() isn't, since
$Foo .::($bar)
would not be the same as we
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 07:41:52PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
: So it would be Foo::.keys() then?
:
: Would this be possible?
The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning toword postfix
operators ::{} and ::<>, essentially in same syntactic niche as ::().
Which means you'd have to write that
Larry,
On Sep 8, 2005, at 5:07 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:52:52PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
: But what if I want to do this?
:
: class Foo {
: my %:stuff;
: method keys (Class $c:) {
: %:stuff.keys();
: }
: }
:
: How can I get at my namespa
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:52:52PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
: But what if I want to do this?
:
: class Foo {
: my %:stuff;
: method keys (Class $c:) {
: %:stuff.keys();
: }
: }
:
: How can I get at my namespace now? How would I disambiguiate that call?
: Doing
Larry,
On Sep 8, 2005, at 2:30 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 03:00:29PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
: Also, is there anyway to iterate over the keys in the namespace? The
: old way would be to do something like keys(%Foo::). Is something like
: this possible with the new way?
Su
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 03:00:29PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
: If methods and subs are in the same namespace, and both have the &
: sigil, what about instance attributes and class attributes? Is this
: legal?
:
: class Foo {
: my $.bar;
: has $.bar;
: }
:
: Part of me thinks that
Larry,
On Sep 7, 2005, at 12:45 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
: >All sigils and twigils are part of the key to the symbol table, so
it's
: >now just
: >
: >Foo<$.baz>
:
: What would Foo<$.baz> return though (assuming Foo is a class)? It
: cannot return a value since it is an instance specific value
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:27:20PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
: How do I differentiate a method from a sub? Wouldn't they both have the
: & sigil?
Yes, as it currently stands, you can only tell that by introspection.
: >: class Foo;
: >: has $.baz;
: >: method bar { ... }
: >:
: >: Can I
Larry,
On Sep 7, 2005, at 11:46 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
: I base this off the AUTO* hooks described in
: S10. I assume too that the METH slot is only valid for Classes, and
not
: appropriate for Packages and Modules.
All those entries are based on the notion of intuiting from the first
characte
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 08:46:24AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: No special {FOO} subscripts, so the question doesn't arise. To the
: symbol table all blocks are stored as Foo<&bar>, presumably with
: extra canonicalized key info for "long" names.
Actually, we might well omit the '&' on Code objects
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 02:04:00PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
: I assume that each symbol table entry has the following slots; SCALAR,
: ARRAY, HASH, SUB, METH.
Nope, typeglobs are dead, dead, dead, dead, and dead, not necessariy in
that order.
: I base this off the AUTO* hooks described in
:
11 matches
Mail list logo
