HaloO,
Nicholas Clark wrote:
Is there any way to pre-declare that I want to defer baking the role from a
class? (Which I guess would make it an error to reference that role at run
time in any way, until I'd issued a second declaration that I was done, and
baking season is open)
I fear this is
TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:
When I mentioned this before, there was big flack over mentioning the
way C++ did it. I think that must have been miscommunicated, since I
wasn't even talking about summing all the arguments when he brought
up "Manhattan dispatch".
BTW, what
N.B. "flak" and "flack" are two different words, the latter referring
to a political position.
On 5/8/08, John M. Dlugosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:
>>> When I mentioned this before, there was big flack over mentioning the
>>> way C++ did it. I
TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:
Coming back to how C++ handles static overloading. How is
the sort order of (int *), (int &), (int), (const int *),
(const int &), (const int), (int * const) and (const int * const)?
I'm too lazy to look up the details, sorry.
Without looking a
HaloO,
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
- const int& is preferred over int/int&.
- const int* is preferred over int*.
You mean when in each case both versions are
defined as overloads only the preferred ones
are ever called? C++ is the other way around.
For an int* argument the int* version is preferred
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
.WHAT gives you an value
of undef that happens to be typed the same as the object in $x,
presuming your metaobject believes in types.
Why does the metaobject have to believe in types? I think it
suffices to define that .WHAT returns a unique binding in the
scope of int
TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:
It's called overload resolution. Perl 6 can't do
that at compile time unless *all* targets are
available as rw and readonly variants.
I don't follow that statement. Can you give an example?
