yary wrote:
[ a lot of good things that make lot of sense ]
Your complaints and review by TimToady and pmichaud on #perl6 convinced
me that this is not a good idea after all, see
http://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2009-09-07#i_1475421
Cheers,
Moritz
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 09:56:51AM -0700, yary wrote:
> I just saw the intent for this in the " split up compilation of the
> setting" thread- that it is useful to:
> >Enable a "class stub" syntax that allows us to declare a given symbol
> > as being a valid class without having to declare the body
I just saw the intent for this in the " split up compilation of the
setting" thread- that it is useful to:
>Enable a "class stub" syntax that allows us to declare a given symbol
> as being a valid class without having to declare the body of the
> class at that time. For example:
>
> class Rat
This spec subtly alters the meaning of "...". Whereas "yada" used to
mean "this is not yet implemented, complain if executed" it now adds
"but don't complain if it is a class fully implemented elsewhere".
Allowing two implementations of a class iff one of them has a yada
opens up maintenance issue
