On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 02:54:18PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
> "Michael Lazzaro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > After thinking about it a little more, I'll set myself on the "yes"
> > side. And propose either '===' or ':=:' to do it.
>
> Definitely '==='.
Hopefully, this thread has been settled
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 09:39:18PM -0500, James Mastros wrote:
> On 12/12/2002 8:07 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
> > Ordinarily you'd test for subs with one of
> >
> > exists &Main::foo
> > &Main::foo.exists
> I thought that was now spelt exists %Main::{&foo} -- that the symbol
> tables were now
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 09:56:15AM -0500, John Siracusa wrote:
> Using the method/attribute named "id" for "this is the same object"
> comparisons is just plain bad Huffman coding. The "this is the same object"
> method/attribute should have a name that reflects the relative rarity of its
> use.
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 09:49:44AM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> Other common names for the proposed .id are:
>
> UUID: Universal Unique Identifier (DCE)
> GUID: Globally Unique Identfier (EFI)
>
> Of the 2, usage of "GUID" seems to be more common IMHO. Both of the above
> are identical in imple
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 09:32:02AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>
> $obj.ID;
> $obj.IDENTITY;
FWIW, I favor the latter.
--Dks
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 06:47:39PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Mind you (purely devil's advocate), I'm not entirely sure the R-to-L
> > syntax truly _needs_ to be in Perl6. It's true I use it all the time,
> > but I can retrain to use L-to-R meth
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 08:26:25PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 06:47:39PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> >> Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I haven't been arguing against his syn
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 03:44:21PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 11:12 AM -0800 12/16/02, Dave Storrs wrote:
> >You find R2L easier to read, I find L2R
> >easier. TIMTOWDI. Perl6 should be smart enough to support both.
>
> Why?
>
> Yes, technically we can do bo
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 09:31:41AM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It seems like Perl6 is moving farther and farther away from Perl5's
> > (almost) typelessness.
>
> It depends what you mean by typed. Perl has always had
Attribution lists are getting a bit complex. This is in response to what Piers wrote
on Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 03:50:44PM +.
DKS
> > [specifying types]
> > Hm. I'm way short on sleep today, so I'm probably missing something,
> > but I don't see why Perl can't sort this out without a specific
101 - 110 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
