Thank you very much for your answers. As I said in my post I knew the synopsis,
but I hoped to have something more precise. I will explore it again by using
Timoty roadmap
On 02/05/2010 01:59 AM, Darren Duncan wrote:
G. Castagna: Covariance and contravariance: conflict without a cause. ACM
T
Author: lwall
Date: 2010-02-05 19:39:57 +0100 (Fri, 05 Feb 2010)
New Revision: 29645
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S03-operators.pod
Log:
[S03] be more specific about bitwise semantics
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S03-operators.pod
===
HaloO Mr Castagna
On Friday, 5. February 2010 16:43:26 you wrote:
> I see I'm going out of the scope of this list. I apologize for spamming,
> but please continue to post here or send me by PM every information about
> Perls 6 types.
I'm delighted to have you interested in Perl 6. I know your boo
On 02/05/2010 10:53 PM, TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) wrote:
HaloO Mr Castagna
I'm delighted to have you interested in Perl 6. I know your book and
articles and have argued for a type system of Perl 6 here on the list
for quite a while.
Wow, so actually somebody read it! :-) Thank you
Unfortunately I
Hi,
TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) wrote:
There is no formally defined subtype relation or rules for subsumption.
A type is called narrower without details what that means.
A is a subtype of B if A ~~ B, where ~~ is the smart-match
operator..It's up to the type object on the RHS how it responds to this.
HaloO Mr Castagna,
On Friday, 5. February 2010 23:13:25 you wrote:
> Actually I noticed an old post you did on this list 5 years ago. It
> contained the following drawing
Yeah it's a long time. And I've sort of lost interest in type theory.
But then I tried to persuade the list of a sophisticated
On 02/05/2010 11:29 PM, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
And the odering in dispatch is not a type lattice as in Cecil but a
topological ordering. Again I've no clue what that means.
and all objects that do A are also B doers. So one could infer that we
have A <: B. But note that this subtype relatio
Giuseppe Castagna wrote:
Yes I saw that inheritance is not subtyping. I would not share this
decision since as an outsider, it seems to me that Perl6 has redundant
syntax (too many different ways to express the same thing), so it is
astonishing that in that case the choice was to use the same k
On 02/05/2010 11:54 PM, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
If you want to check if A inherits from B, do A.isa(B).
If you want to check if A does B, do A.does(B).
If you just care if A is somehow a subtype of B, but don't care why, do
A ~~ B.
Much of the time, the last of these is the important one.
Giuseppe Castagna wrote:
On 02/05/2010 11:29 PM, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
And the odering in dispatch is not a type lattice as in Cecil but a
topological ordering. Again I've no clue what that means.
and all objects that do A are also B doers. So one could infer that we
have A <: B. But note
10 matches
Mail list logo
