[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that a role has a long and a short name. This is
because they aren't subject to MMD. I think of them more as
beeing expanded like C++ templates even though the actual mechanism
will be much more sophisticated. Actually I think of them as F-bounds
as well ;)
Uh
Miroslav Silovic wrote:
Uhm, but C++ templates are subject to (compile-time) MMD, once you
specialise them. In other words,
role Something[Int $num] {...}
role Something[String $num] {...}
Hmm, C++ has no free floating templates. They always template a
class/struct or a function. The Perl6 equiva
Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
I meant: The colon should still act as the delimiter between the params
which account to the long name of the role and those which don't, but
otherwise the syntax should be the same as the standard subroutine
signature syntax, allowing optional params, etc.
I don't think th
Hi,
"TSa (Thomas SandlaÃ)" wrote:
> you wrote:
>> I wondered if it would be useful/good/nice if the syntax for
>> specifying role parameters would be the same as the standard
>> subroutine signature syntax (minus the colon, which
>> separates the parameters wh
HaloO Ingo,
you wrote:
I wondered if it would be useful/good/nice if the syntax for
specifying role parameters would be the same as the standard
subroutine signature syntax (minus the colon, which
separates the parameters which do account to the long name
of the role from the ones which don&#
Hi,
I wondered if it would be useful/good/nice if the syntax for
specifying role parameters would be the same as the standard
subroutine signature syntax (minus the colon, which
separates the parameters which do account to the long name
of the role from the ones which don't).
