On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:53:46 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
>Piers Cawley has written a nice article entitled: "Perl 6 : Not Just For
>Damians".
>http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2001/10/23/damians.html
I just hope that you don't really have to insert that many blank lines
in your code just to make it c
Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "GG" == Garrett Goebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> GG> Piers Cawley has written a nice article entitled: "Perl 6 : Not
> GG> Just For Damians".
>
> GG> If the hair on the back of your neck rises when thinking about
> GG> Perl 6, or even
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:53:46 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
>
>>Piers Cawley has written a nice article entitled: "Perl 6 : Not Just For
>>Damians".
>
>>http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2001/10/23/damians.html
>
> I just hope that you don't really have to inser
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 04:53:46PM -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> Piers Cawley has written a nice article entitled: "Perl 6 : Not Just For
> Damians".
I had missed what unary . really did, and this explained it to me. I'm
now much more excited about it as a "with"-like operator.
It does make me
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 01:13:42PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> It does make me think, though... Would it make sense to have an
> accessor operator? For example, in Perl5 I would do this:
>
> sub foo {
> my $self = shift;
> my $old = $self->{foo};
>
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 01:53:09PM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 01:13:42PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > In Perl6 with the unary ., that becomes:
> >
> > sub .foo (*@args) {
> > my $old = $.{foo};
> > # So $obj.foo(undef) will work
> >
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 01:53:09PM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> Actually, I think it becomes:
>
> sub foo is method {
> my $old = .foo;
> .foo = shift if @_;
> return $old;
> }
>
> But, I could be wrong. Any Damians care to enlighten? :-)
I'm not
Scott wrote:
> Actually, I think it becomes:
>
>sub foo is method {
> my $old = .foo;
> .foo = shift if @_;
> return $old;
>}
>
> But, I could be wrong. Any Damians care to enlighten? :-)
Well, I'm not a Damian, but I play one on perl6-l
Damian Conway:
# Scott wrote:
#
#> Actually, I think it becomes:
#>
#> sub foo is method {
#> my $old = .foo;
#> .foo = shift if @_;
#> return $old;
#> }
#>
#> But, I could be wrong. Any Damians care to enlighten? :-)
#
# Well, I'm not a Damian,
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 08:09:57AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> Larry has ideas, I have ideas...
All good so far ;-)
> However, I don't think the above syntax will be it. I think it would likely
> be closer to:
>
> class Demo {
>
> my $.foo;
>
> method foo {
Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 01:13:42PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
>> It does make me think, though... Would it make sense to have an
>> accessor operator? For example, in Perl5 I would do this:
>>
>> sub foo {
>> my $self = shift;
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 03:28:57PM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
> What if we have an instance variable $foo and a global $foo, and we want
> to access the global?
Do you mean if we've hidden a lexical of the same name in the same
scope? I seem to recall something related to %MY that would let you
acce
12 matches
Mail list logo
