I've always liked how VB allowed you to define "instance methods."
Basically a more elegant way of doing callbacks, plus allows some
structure within your callbacks. Will Perl6 allow this (Perl5 sortof did,
but since the "bless" way of doing things is going away...)
Perhaps...
class foo {..
On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 13:02, Larry Wall wrote:
> Aaron Sherman writes:
> : Should a tied and/or lazy array be forced to present a length on demand,
> : or can length return undef on indeterminate arrays?
>
> An array implementation can return anything it jolly well pleases, but
> I'd say undef wo
On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 21:38, root wrote:
>
> I've always liked how VB allowed you to define "instance methods."
> Basically a more elegant way of doing callbacks, plus allows some
> structure within your callbacks. Will Perl6 allow this (Perl5 sortof did,
> but since the "bless" way of doing t
SUMMARY
Arrays should always have known lengths because that's what arrays do. This
requirement is enforced culturally, not programmatically.
DETAILS
I submit for consideration the idea that if an array doesn't always have a
defined length then it ceases to be that incredibly handy construct t
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:38:12PM -0600, root wrote:
> #BTW, is there some standard way of creating instances
> #now?
Class::Classless and Class::Prototyped off the top of my head.
On Thu, 2002-05-16 at 12:36, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
> I submit for consideration the idea that if an array doesn't always have a
> defined length then it ceases to be that incredibly handy construct that we
> currently call "array". If arrays can answer "I dunno" when asked how long
> they are,
> Languages like perl can't easily be inlined, since subs may be
> redefined at any time. If a sub's a leaf sub you can detect changes
> before calling safely, but if it's not a leaf sub you run into the
> potential issue of having the sub potentially redefined while you're
> in it.
If I'm in mid
Aaron Sherman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> You might not be able to REASONABLY get a length, so you return
> undef. In your documentation, you advise users not to take the length,
> but just dive right in and fetch the element you want, e.g.:
>
> my $pi2k = @pi_digits[2000];
In this ca
On Thursday 16 May 2002 01:13 pm, David Whipp wrote:
> Aaron Sherman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > You might not be able to REASONABLY get a length, so you return
> > undef. In your documentation, you advise users not to take the length,
> > but just dive right in and fetch the element you
On Thu, 2002-05-16 at 16:13, David Whipp wrote:
> Aaron Sherman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > You might not be able to REASONABLY get a length, so you return
> > undef. In your documentation, you advise users not to take the length,
> > but just dive right in and fetch the element you want
On Thu, 2002-05-16 at 16:07, Mike Lambert wrote:
> > Languages like perl can't easily be inlined, since subs may be
> > redefined at any time. If a sub's a leaf sub you can detect changes
> > before calling safely, but if it's not a leaf sub you run into the
> > potential issue of having the sub p
At 06:11 PM 5/16/2002 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
>On Thu, 2002-05-16 at 16:07, Mike Lambert wrote:
>There're three stages:
>
> 1. "compile time" -- When a module or program is byte-coded
> 2. "load time" -- When byte-code is loaded off of disk
> 3. "run time" -- When the p
--
On Thu, 16 May 2002 12:36:42
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
>SUMMARY
>
>Arrays should always have known lengths because that's what arrays do. This
>requirement is enforced culturally, not programmatically.
I totally agree that this should be enforced culturally. I think that the way a tied
13 matches
Mail list logo
