HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
Another possibility is to take $? away from the compiler. All the
compiler variables could go under $= instead, since pod is actually
just one particular kind of compiler-time data, and there's really
no particular mnemonic relationship between ? and the compiler.
But $
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 12:37:04PM +0100, TSa wrote:
: The above also describes my perception of the $. twigil notation which
: are variables bound through the invocant(s). My mental picture beeing
: one where a method is instanciated as a not yet invoked sub after selecting
: the target code body
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
Well, it's possible that I'm abusing the terms, since I first heard
the terms from you and inferred what they meant.
I'm honoured. Thanks. Please don't get me wrong. I appreciate the
document you wrote. I just want to help with peer reviewing it.
However, there is
On 11/3/05, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If Foo2 were a role (that is, if it obeys the role relation above),
> then the only thing bar2() could do would be to take some side-effect
> action and then return the same object it was passed. Here's a proof:
>
> Given ^T $x where Foo{^T}
On 11/3/05, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So if A <: B, I would expect Role{B} <: Role{A} and Factory{A} <: Factory{B}
> on the following rational.
Well, it's possible that I'm abusing the terms, since I first heard
the terms from you and inferred what they meant.
However, there is a problem i
