Re: Superpositions and laziness

2002-11-21 Thread Piers Cawley
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Piers Cawley wrote: > >>> C is compile-time. >> So, how would one create a class which inherits from some other >> class >> when you don't know what said other class is until runtime? > > Use Perl5-ish classes, or an C. Perl5-ish classes? You mean 'ble

Re: TERN-discuss mailing list finally available

2002-11-21 Thread Austin Hastings
They can't be very serious -- the archive link is dead. Or perhaps everyone agrees that something needs to be done, but no-one has any ideas? =Austin --- "Joseph F. Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > david wrote: > > > The brazen heresy continues... > > > > http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listin

Re: Coroutines, continuations, and iterators -- oh, my! (Was: Re: Continuations elified)

2002-11-21 Thread fearcadi
Damian Conway writes: > > There's no second iterator. Just C walking through an array. > ( questions in the form of answers :-) so : * "for" impose array context for first argument and doesnt care about "nature" of the array which it was given eventually as an argument . no multiple st

Re: Unifying invocant and topic naming syntax

2002-11-21 Thread Me
> [perhaps] > : bare blocks (even those passed as args) just > : pick up from the surrounding lexical context. This is definitely a significant simplification. Is it a problem? > Yes, that's the problem. A bare block would > have to notice at run time that it was called > with unexpected argument

Re: Unifying invocant and topic naming syntax

2002-11-21 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:27:07AM -0600, Me wrote: : And documenting this by the '->' distinction : described above (ie -> means private $_ set : by mumble, no -> means $_ is just the outer : lexical) would look natural as well being : logical and strikingly simple. It would, however, force peopl

RE: Unifying invocant and topic naming syntax

2002-11-21 Thread Martin D Kealey
On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 20:11, Brent Dax wrote: > Are you suggesting this? > > if($error) { > use visible '&croak'; > require Carp; > import Carp: 'croak'; > croak($error); > } No - that would be pointless as well as error-prone.

Re: Unifying invocant and topic naming syntax

2002-11-21 Thread Me
> > Are you suggesting this? > > > > if($error) { > > use visible '&croak'; > > require Carp; > > import Carp: 'croak'; > > croak($error); > > } > > No - that would be pointless as well as error-prone. > > My idea of "visible" is that it would make a lexically scoped thing > accessible to an inn

This week's Perl 6 summary

2002-11-21 Thread Piers Cawley
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20021117 "Oh! my ears and whiskers, I'm late!" It's 0650, it's 20021120 and I've only just started writing the summary. Call me lazy, call me a shirker, call me anything you damn well please, just don't interrupt me while I'm writing this.