On Sat, 05 Oct 2002 15:51:04 -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 02:50:11PM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
>> Ah, but the usual case is this:
>> You download from CPAN class A that depends on version 1.0 of class N. You
>> then download class B that also depends on version 1.0 of
On Wed, 02 Oct 2002 04:12:44 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I like the "class Vehicle is interface" as a shorthand for declaring every
> method of a class to be an interface.
Perhaps associating a property with a class can be shorthand for associating
that property with every method of the cl
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 05:56:19PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Oct 2002 15:51:04 -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
>
> >
> > class A would have:
> >
> > use Acme::N-1_0; # or whatever the format of the name is
> >
> > while the updated class B would have:
> >
> >use Acme::N-1_1;
>
In a message dated Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Allison Randal writes:
> Hmmm... I can see how it might be handy if C would just
> grab the highest numbered "Acme::N..." module on the system.
After a
no strict 'versions';
please. :-)
Trey
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 06:17:37PM -0400, Daniel B. Boorstein wrote:
> I think there may be some confusion here. In java, there's no special syntax
> to declare a method an optional part of the interface. All concrete classes
> that implement the Collection interface still must define full-bodie
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 11:57:51PM -0400, Noah White wrote:
> I wouldn't call it a dirty little secret as Michael put it :-).
> This is the right thing to do within the context of a contract. The
> contract does not guarantee that method functionality implemented by a
> concrete cl
In a message dated Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Michael G Schwern writes:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 06:17:37PM -0400, Daniel B. Boorstein wrote:
> > I think there may be some confusion here. In java, there's no special syntax
> > to declare a method an optional part of the interface. All concrete classes
> >
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 05:03:26PM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
> > It really ought to be one of those "sure you can do this, but please don't"
> > things.
>
> It's a RuntimeException. You can't require that all RuntimeExceptions be
> declared if thrown;
> You can subclass RuntimeException. So if
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 04:32:40PM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
> In a message dated Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Allison Randal writes:
> > Hmmm... I can see how it might be handy if C would just
> > grab the highest numbered "Acme::N..." module on the system.
>
> After a
>
> no strict 'versions';
>
> please
Take a look at:
http://java.sun.com/products/jdk/1.2/docs/guide/collections/designfaq.html
Either you agree with the answer to "Core Interfaces" questions 1 and 2 or
you don't. There are tradeoffs to be made, and I think they made some
reasonable choices, though others are free to think otherwis
On 6 Oct 2002, Smylers wrote:
: Do parens still provide list context on the left side of an assignment?
Er, kind of. More precisely, use of parens on the left provides a
flattening list context on the right side, just as in Perl 5. I guess
I did not make clear that a basic Perl 6 design decisio
On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Trey Harris wrote:
: In a message dated Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Noah White writes:
: > On Sunday, October 6, 2002, at 01:50 AM, Brent Dax wrote:
: >
: > > Parens don't construct lists EVER! They only group elements
: > > syntactically. One common use of parens is to surround a
: >
On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
: According to Larry Wall:
: > I suppose we could make comma merely puke in scalar context rather
: > than DWIM, at least optionally.
:
: I rather like Perl 5's scalar comma operator.
Most of the uses of which are actually in void context, where it
does
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: At 12:40 PM -0700 9/26/02, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
: >On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Paul Johnson wrote:
: >> Is that sufficiently vague?
: >
: >Not vague enough, because the current implementation manages to miss the
: >broad side of that semantic barn...
:
: The i
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
: Thanks for taking the time to write this out.
:
: On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, John Williams wrote:
: > perl6 operator precedence
: >
: >leftterms and list operators (leftward) [] {} () quotes
: >left. and unary .
: >
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, John Williams wrote:
: I'm trying to write a revised operator precedence table for perl6,
: similar to the one in perlop.pod.
:
: This is what I have come up with based on Apocalypse 3 and Exegesis 3.
: Does anyone have comments? I'm not sure if the precedence
: for : (ad
On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
: : perl6 operator precedence
: :
: :leftterms and list operators (leftward) [] {} () quotes
: :left. and unary .
:
: Unary . can't be left associative. Perhaps unary . is nonassoc like ++.
Actually, unary . has to b
According to Larry Wall:
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> : I rather like Perl 5's scalar comma operator.
>
> Most of the uses of which are actually in void context [...]
I didn't realize you were distinguishing scalar from void in this, uh,
context. I agree that scalar comma is e
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Joe Gottman wrote:
: Apocalypse 4 mentions unary '?' . Since this is used to force boolean
: context, I would assume that it has the same precedence as unary '+' and
: '_' which force numeric and string context respectively. By the way, has
: anyone come up with a use
19 matches
Mail list logo
