[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# I was wondering how perl6 would stringify (as in Data::Dumper):
As Dan said, that's serialization. I don't know if Perl will support
that built-in. But if it does...
# 1) objects with 'my' and 'our' variables
Those would have to be dumped from the pads or stashes.
I just want to verify that I properly understand the use of these two terms
in Perl 6.
* An "attribute" is a data member of a class.
* A "property" is a piece of metadata on a...uh...thing -- e.g., on an
attribute, on a class, or on a method.
Do I have it right?
For some reason, I've al
While thinking Eiffel-ish thoughts the other day, I began to wonder if
Perl6's classes could go beyond the simple private/public/protected
scheme by optionally allowing for a property or method to only be
accessed by a certain set of classes. For instance(as I understand
Perl6 syntax):
class
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 11:27:53PM -0400, Chris Dutton wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 10, 2002, at 09:54 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
>
> >That's getting a little ugly, so maybe we'd "lift" the syntax from
> >Eiffel instead:
> >
> > method set_baz($newbaz is like($.baz)) { $.baz = $newbaz }
>
> Th
Paul Johnson wrote:
> I've always found the word "like" to be very wishy-washy in a computer
> langauge. In what way is newbaz like baz? And just how alike are they?
> There must be a better way to describe this.
Perhaps:
method set_baz($newbaz is compatible($.baz)) { $.baz = $newbaz
David Wheeler wrote:
> I just want to verify that I properly understand the use of these two terms
> in Perl 6.
and in the wider OO community, BTW.
> * An "attribute" is a data member of a class.
Yes.
> * A "property" is a piece of metadata on a...uh...thing -- e.g., on an
> att
On 5/11/02 2:48 PM, "Damian Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> Well, I suppose there's always a *chance* that we'd both completely reverse
> our careful thinking on this issue and ignore the common usage of "attribute"
> in the OO literature. But I do think it would be easier all round if you
On 5/11/02 2:43 PM, "Damian Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> method set_baz($newbaz is compatible($.baz)) { $.baz = $newbaz }
> method set_baz($newbaz is typeof($.baz)) { $.baz = $newbaz }
I like the latter best -- and it beats the hell out of "instanceof" ;-)
Regards,
David
--
David W
David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 5/11/02 2:43 PM, "Damian Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
>
> > method set_baz($newbaz is compatible($.baz)) { $.baz = $newbaz }
> > method set_baz($newbaz is typeof($.baz)) { $.baz = $newbaz }
>
> I like the latter best -- and it beats the hel
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> > I've always found the word "like" to be very wishy-washy in a computer
> > langauge. In what way is newbaz like baz? And just how alike are they?
> > There must be a better way to describe this.
>
> Perhaps:
>
> meth
"Brent Dax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # I was wondering how perl6 would stringify (as in Data::Dumper):
>
> As Dan said, that's serialization. I don't know if Perl will support
> that built-in. But if it does...
>
> # 1) objects with 'my' and 'our' variables
>
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
