|
6macros: discussing the finer points of Perl 6 macros, Qtrees, and how to stay sane | irclog: irclog.perlgeek.de/6macros/today Set by moderator on 28 July 2015. |
|||
|
01:16
raiph joined
|
|||
| raiph | .tell cognominal I've posted some questions about your slang proposal at gist.github.com/cognominal/d181082...af6d51a42d | 01:18 | |
|
01:49
ilbot3 joined
03:13
raiph left
07:34
pdcawley joined
08:34
cognominal joined
15:00
pdcawley joined
16:01
cognominal joined
|
|||
| vendethiel | irclog.perlgeek.de/6macros/2016-06-17#i_12683780 | 18:09 | |
| it's certainly scary. Maybe grammars need some kind of cleanup phase? RAII style things? | |||
| FWIW, I miss that in pretty much any language that doesn't have it... | |||
| (and timely destruction doesn't happen often) | 18:10 | ||
| irclog.perlgeek.de/6macros/2016-06-14#i_12663974 | |||
| I don't know. I don't think it matters much? and to be fair, `sub infix:<in>($a, $b) { $b.__contains__($a); }` | |||
| irclog.perlgeek.de/6macros/2016-06-14#i_12664170 I don't understand how it's meta? | 18:11 | ||
|
18:57
FROGGS joined
19:27
pdcawley_ joined
|
|||
| masak | vendethiel: I guess your point is that a __contains__ method (or its moral equivalent) needs to be present in order for userland containers to declare how they `in`? kind of like the relationship between .ACCEPTS and `~~` in Perl 6. | 20:02 | |
|
20:38
cognominal joined
|
|||
| masak | vendethiel: re "meta" -- I guess I meant something like "the `.has` method hasn't been put there by the user, but rather by the object system. where normal methods would talk about the object's contents, this method concerns itself with the object's shape" | 20:39 | |
| Python has a nearly ridiculous amount of dunder methods. | 20:43 | ||
| vendethiel | masak: yeah, for me in is like ~~ (in that it requires a method like in Perl 6 etc) | 21:17 | |
| masak | for the bootstrapping of 007, I don't see that a method would be necessary. I mean, one could just define infix:<in> (in the guest 007) in terms of infix:<in> (in the host 007) | 21:22 | |
| but for language extensibility and user-defined types, I guess there has to be some way | |||