|
09:00
Ven`` joined
|
|||
| Ven`` | masak: feels to me like assoc levels should be constants, not strings | 09:49 | |
| have we ever discussed this(?) | 09:50 | ||
.oO( TMTM; Too Minor To Matter ) |
|||
| surprised by this change of traits=>decorators | 09:51 | ||
| well, I know it's in a branch for now. | |||
| I recall a talk about adding decorators to Ruby (it featured 2 other nice features), masak: does that ring a bell? | 09:52 | ||
| www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjYgNnCtpg4 | 10:04 | ||
| masak | no, not really | 10:35 | |
| I'm in a region right now where I can not easily consume YouTube videos; however, I will add it to my list of things to watch | 10:36 | ||
| Ven``: agree about constants, by the way | 10:37 | ||
| Ven`` | oh! I know this kind of list. It's an append-only list, it never shrinks :P | ||
| masak | here's what happened: I made the straightforward change in that branch, and then immediately saw that with decorators, it can't be "spelled" the same way as traits | ||
| Ven`` | my "Watch Later: Prog" is at 166 videos now :-( | ||
| masak | I don't remember if I made an issue about that, or if I only dreamed doing so | 10:38 | |
| `is tighter(infix:<+>)` looks fine, but `@tighter(infix:<+>)` looks dodgy | 10:41 | ||
| I think I ended up wanting `@prec.tighter(infix:<+>)` | 10:42 | ||
| Ven`` | why does it look dodgy? | 10:43 | |
| masak | without the `is`, I think there isn't enough contextual information about what's tighter than what exactly | ||
| it could mean (as intended) "this thing I'm declaring is tighter than infix:<+>", or "here's infix:<+>, which is tighter" | 10:44 | ||
| hm, so maybe `@prec.tighterThan(infix:<+>)` would be preferable | |||
| Ven`` | while I understand your point, I wouldn't think this matter would be the one to sway you for/against decorators or traits. | 10:47 | |
| masak | no, not at all | 10:48 | |
| but what swayed me wasn't one single thing, I think | 10:49 | ||
| to some extent whether it's spelled `is` and sits after the parameter list, or spelled `@` and sits before the entire declaration, doesn't matter all that much | 10:50 | ||
| Ven`` nods | 10:51 | ||
| masak | I think I enjoy the decorators more, esthetically | 10:52 | |
| Ven`` | I like flat, I dislike "unjoined/separated" | 10:57 | |
| masak | `is assoc` being flat and `@assoc` being separated? not sure I can connect those descriptions to something. | 13:04 | |
|
13:12
lucasb joined
|
|||
| Ven`` | no, @ is both flat and separated. flat on the screen (it's aligned with the function) but separated because it's on a different line | 14:06 | |
| masak | I've toyed around with writing `@set has someAttr;` in some places. that seems to work. but for the longer things like @prec and @assoc, it pushes the `func` keyword too far off to the right. | 14:13 | |
| Ven`` | like P6's `class X { does Y; }`? | 14:17 | |
| masak | no, the Perl 6 equivalent would be something like `has $.someAttr is set;` | 14:21 | |
| Ven`` | ah, OK | 14:24 | |
|
22:22
lucasb left
|
|||