--- Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Then again, there are some very talented people
> with a lot of free
> > time in the Perl community; I wouldn't count it
> out.
>
> That looked to me like a "Damian troll", hoping that
> DC wou
I was reading through E6 again, and noticed something a little
troubling:
sub part ([EMAIL PROTECTED] is rw) {...}
Well, I @_ C! Otherwise we wouldn't be able to
C things off of it. What was actually meant, I presume, is:
sub part ([EMAIL PROTECTED] of (Object is rw)) {...} #[1]
Or s
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Next Apocalypse is objects, and that'll take time.
Objects are *worth* more time than a lot of the other topics.
Arguably, they're just as important as subroutines, in a modern
language.
Speaking of objects... are we going to have a built-in object fo
Jonadab the Unsightly One writes:
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Next Apocalypse is objects, and that'll take time.
>
> Objects are *worth* more time than a lot of the other topics.
> Arguably, they're just as important as subroutines, in a modern
> language.
>
> Speaking of o
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Also, the "standard library", however large or small that will be, will
> definitely be mutable at runtime. There'll be none of that Java "you
> can't subclass String, because we think you shouldn't" crap.
Java's standard class library is a mishmash of th
