Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
I hope you're way off the mark. Automatic coercion was one of the
annoyances I remember from C++. Debugging becomes more difficult when
you have to not only chase down things that are a Foo, but anything
you've compiled that might know how to turn itself into a Foo.
O
From: Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 17:23:54 -0500
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 11:48:04AM -0700, Joshua Choi wrote:
> How does automatic coercion work?
[ deletia ]
> 1. C automatically coerces its C arguments into C
> parameters because C.
Wouldn
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 11:48:04AM -0700, Joshua Choi wrote:
> How does automatic coercion work?
[ deletia ]
> 1. C automatically coerces its C arguments into C
> parameters because C.
> 2. C then automatically coerces its C arguments into
> C parameters because C.
>
> ...Or am I completely off t
My understanding is that "does" will prevent coercion. In particular,
it is erroneous to say that 'Str does Num' or that 'Num does Str'.
If you say 'Foo does Bar', what this means is that anything Bar can
do, Foo can do, too. As such, any routine that asks for a Bar can
just as easily be given
Kudos to all(@Larry)!
How does automatic coercion work? Like, when a routine wants a
parameter of a certain type, and is called with an argument of a
different type that C
(For instance, is it something a little like this?
multi sum ( Num $addend1, Num $addend2 --> Num ) { ... }
multi say ( S
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Luke Palmer wrote:
my Int $int = $num;
Explicit coercion, however, isn't done with context: it is done with the
.as() method: $num.as(Int). I think that's weird.
Not to mention the fact that you might have put an Int there for
typechecking purposes instead of coersion pur
Luke Palmer skribis 2005-09-14 22:21 (+):
> (conversely, is ~ just a Str context applicator?)?
Yes, the way I think of it is that ~ is short for Str(), + is short for
Num(), and ? is short for Bool().
> If a parent class defines a coercion operation, do you get it too
> (and what are the imp
On 9/14/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Instead, if you don't want something to coerce, be explicit:
> $foo.does(Blah) or fail;, or even: $foo.isa(Blah) or fail;.)
We've been thinking of changing .isa to something longer, or a method
on .meta, because it's a notion that is often misused. U
I was asked to { Verb 'p6l' } the idea of types providing context, and
well, here it is.
(We got at these thoughts from a discussion of a hypothetic lexical pragma
to disable automatic coercion, which I thought was a bad idea because
that's practically to ignore context, Perl's strongest language
