HaloO,
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Em Qui, 2009-03-05 às 18:43 -0800, Jon Lang escreveu:
And more generally, would there be a
reasonable way to write a single routine (i.e., implementation) that
could be invoked by a programmer's choice of these calling
conventions, without redirects (i.e., code blocks
Em Qui, 2009-03-05 às 18:43 -0800, Jon Lang escreveu:
> OK; let me get a quick clarification here. How does:
> say "Hello, World!";
This is the equivalent to
&say.postcircumfix:<( )>( \("Hello, World") );
> differ from:
> "Hello, World!".say;
This is just
"Hello, World!".say;
Mean
OK; let me get a quick clarification here. How does:
say "Hello, World!";
differ from:
"Hello, World!".say;
or:
say $*OUT: "Hello, World!";
in terms of dispatching? And more generally, would there be a
reasonable way to write a single routine (i.e., implementation) that
could be
Darren Duncan wrote:
So, is there some way, or is it reasonable for there to be, to declare a
method in Perl 6 such that say it is declared with say an Array of R or
Set of R etc parameter and that parameter is marked somehow, maybe with
a trait, to say it automatically gains the invocant as on
Darren Duncan wrote:
> Here's a question:
>
> Say I had an N-adic routine where in OO terms the invocant is one of the N
> terms, and which of those is the invocant doesn't matter, and what we really
> want to have is the invocant automatically being a member of the input list.
How about allowing
Larry Wall wrote:
So what's the difference between a function and a method then?
Nothing on the implementation end. The only difference is in the
call end; we have different calling notations that invoke different
dispatchers. Each of those dispatchers resolves the membership
and ordering of i
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 12:58:21PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
: Em Qua, 2009-03-04 às 20:21 +0100, pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl
: escreveu:
: > Simplify meaning of Capture and Match in item context to preserve sanity
: > (an object in item context is always just itself, never a subpart)
:
:
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Daniel Ruoso escreveu:
>> What really got me confused is that I don't see what problem this change
>> solves, since it doesn't seem that a signature that expects an invocant
>> (i.e.: cares about invocant) will accept a call without an invocant, so
>> "method foo($b,$c) is exp
Em Qui, 2009-03-05 às 12:58 -0300, Daniel Ruoso escreveu:
> What really got me confused is that I don't see what problem this change
> solves, since it doesn't seem that a signature that expects an invocant
> (i.e.: cares about invocant) will accept a call without an invocant, so
> "method foo($b,$
Em Qua, 2009-03-04 às 20:21 +0100, pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl
escreveu:
> Simplify meaning of Capture and Match in item context to preserve sanity
> (an object in item context is always just itself, never a subpart)
sub foo { return 1 }
my $a = foo();
That is currently expressed as tak
Author: lwall
Date: 2009-03-04 20:20:59 +0100 (Wed, 04 Mar 2009)
New Revision: 25685
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S02-bits.pod
docs/Perl6/Spec/S03-operators.pod
docs/Perl6/Spec/S04-control.pod
docs/Perl6/Spec/S05-regex.pod
docs/Perl6/Spec/S06-routines.pod
docs/Perl6/Spec/S09-data.po
11 matches
Mail list logo
