[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Property should be an adjective, not a noun.
While I'm inclined to want to disagree with you
100% on that, I really only disagree 50%. :-)
--
John Porter
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:51:53AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
>> And btw . . . Wouldn't
>>
>> $thing has property
As in "door has redness" - ugh
vs "door is red".
Property should be an adjective, not a noun.
>>
>> make more sense than
>>
>
On Tue, 8 May 2001, Me wrote:
> yes?
>
> And, despite perl5's use of no as the opposite
> of use, and given that there may be no use in
> perl6 (;>), and thus perhaps no no, (on and off?),
> then maybe no could be used as not yes?
>
> no?
Your Honor, I would like to stipulate that t
> Well clearly "on" is the opposite of "no". Yes?
maybe, as in:
my cat maybe Dog;
for some form of relaxed typing constraint.
Me wrote:
> And, despite perl5's use of no as the opposite
> of use, and given that there may be no use in
> perl6 (;>), and thus perhaps no no, (on and off?),
> then maybe no could be used as not yes?
Well clearly "on" is the opposite of "no". Yes?
--
John Porter
> If you're trying to confuse me, I can assure you it's unnecessary.
;-)
Hey, I try.
--me
(Under cover Ruby/Python agent and
promotor of RFCs 380 thru 1,000,000)
Me writes:
: > So bool would perhaps be a synthetic property that has opposite
: polarity
: > from bit? I can see that, sort of. It's something like electrons
: being
: > negative, thank you Mr. Franklin.
:
: s/bit/yes/
:
: yes?
:
: And, despite perl5's use of no as the opposite
: of use, and
> So bool would perhaps be a synthetic property that has opposite
polarity
> from bit? I can see that, sort of. It's something like electrons
being
> negative, thank you Mr. Franklin.
s/bit/yes/
yes?
And, despite perl5's use of no as the opposite
of use, and given that there may be no use in
: > >is => typing, inheritance, etc.
: > >has => composition, aggregation, etc.
: >
: > True, but those are basic OO concepts, which don't neatly apply to
: > property-lists (a very old Lisp concept that Perl6 is adopting).
Well, you can think of it like that, but I'm actually trying for some
Simon Cozens wrote:
> John Porter wrote:
> > $thing is;
> Existence is not the same as essence.
strike() while $the_iron is;
--
John Porter
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 04:10:47PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Rocco Caputo wrote:
> > $thing's veracity is true.
>
> What about just
> $thing is;
Existence is not the same as essence.
--
Triage your efforts, y'know?
- Thorfinn
Rocco Caputo wrote:
> $thing's veracity is true.
What about just
$thing is;
--
John Porter
All men are subjects.
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 03:00:59PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:51:53AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > And btw . . . Wouldn't
> >
> > $thing has property
> >
> > make more sense than
> >
> > $thing is property
>
> "$foo has true" doesn't flow as well as
> >is => typing, inheritance, etc.
> >has => composition, aggregation, etc.
>
> True, but those are basic OO concepts, which don't neatly apply to
> property-lists (a very old Lisp concept that Perl6 is adopting).
"is" does seem to imply an OO is-a relationship. So lets run
with it!
If $foo i
Edward Peschko writes:
: Anyways, my one curiosity that sticks out would be: why \Q as being a way to
: disambiguate? You could do the same thing with:
:
: print "$foo\[1]\n"
: vs
: print "$foo[1]\n";
Not good enough. Consider what this might means:
m/$foo\[a-z]\n/
Is it matching a litera
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 11:51:43AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> @pi are square;
Pi are round. Cake are square.
--
Tad McClellan SGML consulting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Perl programming
Fort Worth, Texas
At 10:49 AM 05-04-2001 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
>From: Buddha Buck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > At 03:00 PM 05-04-2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > >On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:51:53AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > > > And btw . . . Wouldn't
> > > >
> > > > $thing has property
>
On Fri, 4 May 2001 10:49:48 -0500 , Garrett Goebel wrote:
>> > > And btw . . . Wouldn't
>> > >
>> > > $thing has property
>> > >
>> > > make more sense than
>> > >
>> > > $thing is property
>> >
>> >"$foo has true" doesn't flow as well as "$foo is true". Dunno quite
>> >what the oth
@pi are square;
@dogs have fleas;
@talks have stalled;
--
John Porter
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:47:18AM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Michael G Schwern writes:
> > "$foo has true" doesn't flow as well as "$foo is true". Dunno quite
> > what the other expected uses are.
>
> $foo has truth; # :-)
>
> This leads naturally to:
>
> $foo has the_buddha_natur
From: Buddha Buck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> At 03:00 PM 05-04-2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> >On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:51:53AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > > And btw . . . Wouldn't
> > >
> > > $thing has property
> > >
> > > make more sense than
> > >
> > > $thing is pro
Michael G Schwern writes:
> "$foo has true" doesn't flow as well as "$foo is true". Dunno quite
> what the other expected uses are.
$foo has truth; # :-)
This leads naturally to:
$foo has the_buddha_nature;
$foo has ten_days_to_live;
$foo has meddled_in_my_affairs_one_too_many_times!
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> "$foo has true" doesn't flow as well as "$foo is true".
But the general form, something like
$thing is a_property
or
$thing is a_behavior
flows considerably worse, IMHO.
--
John Porter
It's so mysterious, the land of tears.
At 03:00 PM 05-04-2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:51:53AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > And btw . . . Wouldn't
> >
> > $thing has property
> >
> > make more sense than
> >
> > $thing is property
>
>"$foo has true" doesn't flow as well as "$foo is true"
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:51:53AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> And btw . . . Wouldn't
>
> $thing has property
>
> make more sense than
>
> $thing is property
"$foo has true" doesn't flow as well as "$foo is true". Dunno quite
what the other expected uses are.
--
Michael G. Sc
Bart Lateur wrote:
> I hardly ever restrict
> myself to word characters in the end delimiter, anyway.
Interesting -- I *always* use "EOF", because that's the
only one vim knows a priori how to highlight correctly. :-/
--
John Porter
It's so mysterious, the land of tears.
Piers Cawley wrote:
> sub decorate ($obj) {
> $obj is ad_hoc_method(sub {...});
> }
> and expect C<$obj.ad_hoc_method(...)>
And btw . . . Wouldn't
$thing has property
make more sense than
$thing is property
???
"Is" usually implies a generalization link,
not
On Thu, 03 May 2001 22:14:47 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
>I am going to miss doublequoting being the default quoting for
>here strings. I find that to be a very nice optimization and
>would like to know more about the reasoning behind taking it
>away.
I was already panicking when I saw this me
David L. Nicol writes:
: I am going to miss doublequoting being the default quoting for
: here strings. I find that to be a very nice optimization and
: would like to know more about the reasoning behind taking it
: away. I worry that official standard p6 will be more difficult
: to use than off
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 10:14:47PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
>
> I am going to miss doublequoting being the default quoting for
> here strings. I find that to be a very nice optimization and
> would like to know more about the reasoning behind taking it
> away. I worry that official standard
30 matches
Mail list logo
