On Feb 11, 2009, at 2:46 PM, Carl Mäsak wrote:
Jon (>), Jonasthan (>>):
If we declared, for example:
role A::B {};
Then what should a reference to A be here? At the moment, Rakudo
treats it
as a post-declared listop, however I suspect we should be doing
something a
bit smarter? If so, w
Author: lwall
Date: 2009-02-12 18:04:41 +0100 (Thu, 12 Feb 2009)
New Revision: 25306
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S10-packages.pod
docs/Perl6/Spec/S11-modules.pod
docs/Perl6/Spec/S12-objects.pod
Log:
[S10] updates to package policies
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S10-packages.pod
=
Author: lwall
Date: 2009-02-12 18:50:43 +0100 (Thu, 12 Feb 2009)
New Revision: 25308
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S03-operators.pod
Log:
some cleanup suggested by Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang++
detangling of metaoperators from metatokens
"metatokens" are composed of metaoperators plus ordinary o
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 02:23:15PM -0800, Jon Lang wrote:
: With the addition of the reversing metaoperator, the claim that there
: are six metaoperators (made in the second paragraph of the meta
: operators section) is no longer true.
Count again.
: Likewise, the reduction
: operator is no longe
Author: lwall
Date: 2009-02-12 19:23:25 +0100 (Thu, 12 Feb 2009)
New Revision: 25310
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S03-operators.pod
Log:
failure of parallelism in headings
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S03-operators.pod
===
--- docs/Per
Are required named parameters (e.g., ':$foo!') considered to be part
of the long name provided by a signature? (S06 seems to indicate that
they aren't.)
Either way, can their status with respect to the long name be changed?
That is, if they aren't included in the long name, can they be added
to
