--- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A lightweight, typedef-like mechanism behaves differently:
> >
> > class Foo is Bar;
> > typedef Baz is Bar;
> >
> > Foo.isa("Baz") == TRUE;
>
> Ah, I get it. But why would you want that -- treating Foo and Baz as
>
> synonymous?
Treati
> Ah, I get it. But why would you want that -- treating Foo and Baz as
> synonymous? Shouldn't you always be using Baz instead of Foo, if you
> really mean Baz and not Foo, and vice versa? Because later on, if you
> changed it such that:
>
> class Foo is Bar;
> typedef Baz is Bar is
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 01:47:19PM -0500, Chris Dutton wrote:
: This may have been asked before, and I apologize if I somehow missed it,
: but can junctions be used for multiple properties?
:
: I can see it possibly being useful in a situation like the
: following(which may be completely off, as
--- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 01:05 PM, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > More to the point:
> >
> > type sigfunc is interrupt is reentrant;
> >
> > sub sig_ign() is sigfunc {...}
> > sub sig_kill() is sigfunc {...}
> > sub sig_intr() is sigfunc {...}
>
On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 01:23 PM, Dave Whipp wrote:
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Defining a Class for this is also overkill.
Ye.. well, no. Why?
class Foo is Bar; # normal inheritance
class Baz is Bar; # the thing that we are over-killing
Foo.isa("Baz") == FALSE;
A lightweight, typedef-
On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 01:05 PM, Austin Hastings wrote:
More to the point:
type sigfunc is interrupt is reentrant;
sub sig_ign() is sigfunc {...}
sub sig_kill() is sigfunc {...}
sub sig_intr() is sigfunc {...}
This is WAGging based on A6, but I guess I see things like this as
being imp
On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 02:13 PM, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
I don't think that junctions make sense here. Besides, the "is" is
optional:
class Foo {
method bar is public rw const frob knob { ... }
}
Ah yes, I'd forgotten about this. Thanks. Still I wond
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Defining a Class for this is also overkill.
Ye.. well, no. Why?
class Foo is Bar; # normal inheritance
class Baz is Bar; # the thing that we are over-killing
Foo.isa("Baz") == FALSE;
A lightweight, typedef-like mechanism behaves differently:
class Foo is Bar;
ty
--- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 12:04 PM, Mark Biggar wrote:
> > What we do need is some way of bundling a bunch of traits together
> > under a simple name.
>
> Yes, yes, yes.
>
> > Defining a Class for this is also overkill.
>
> Ye.. well, no.
On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 12:04 PM, Mark Biggar wrote:
What we do need is some way of bundling a bunch of traits together
under a simple name.
Yes, yes, yes.
Defining a Class for this is also overkill.
Ye.. well, no. Why?
So instead of saying:
my %pet is Hash of Array of Array of
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 01:47:19PM -0500, Chris Dutton wrote:
This may have been asked before, and I apologize if I somehow missed it,
but can junctions be used for multiple properties?
I can see it possibly being useful in a situation like the
following(which may be
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 01:13:27PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: I don't think that junctions make sense here. Besides, the "is" is
: optional:
:
: class Foo {
: method bar is public rw const frob knob { ... }
: }
That feature is still in Schroedinger's little bo
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 01:47:19PM -0500, Chris Dutton wrote:
> This may have been asked before, and I apologize if I somehow missed it,
> but can junctions be used for multiple properties?
>
> I can see it possibly being useful in a situation like the
> following(which may be completely off, as
This may have been asked before, and I apologize if I somehow missed it,
but can junctions be used for multiple properties?
I can see it possibly being useful in a situation like the
following(which may be completely off, as I'm still digging my way
through A6):
class Foo {
method bar is p
14 matches
Mail list logo
