|
leanpub.com/perl6 | logs at irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6book/today | announcement at perlgeek.de/blog-en/perl-6/2016-book.html Set by moderator on 15 January 2017. |
|||
|
02:49
ilbot3 joined
|
|||
| moderator | leanpub.com/perl6 | logs at irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6book/today | announcement at perlgeek.de/blog-en/perl-6/2016-book.html | ||
| [ptc] | review chapter ++ | 07:02 | |
| moritz: maybe a chapter about cool things to do with unicode would be a good idea | |||
| moritz: Perl6 is one of the few languages with really good unicode support, so that's something to make a bit of noise about | |||
| moritz: also: identifiers must start with a letter, right? | |||
| moritz: would a prcecise definition be that identifiers start with a letter as defined by unicode? | 07:03 | ||
| moritz | [ptc]: letter or underscore | 07:12 | |
| [ptc]: and I plan to dwell a bit on Unicode when doing the regexes/grammars part | |||
| [ptc] | moritz: also: when looking for methods, the compiler looks for subs *not only* in the current lexical scope, but also for methods in the class of the object as well as parent classes | 07:30 | |
| have I got that right? | |||
| the reason I ask is that on roughly line 170 of review.md, a contrast is made between subs and methods (and how methods are looked up), and the contrast (via 'but') doesn't work if one does't work the way it's currently written | |||
| hence why I think the meaning is that the compiler looks for *not only* subs in the current scope. | |||
| however, I've probably misunderstood something... | |||
| the review ends rather abruptly. It probably needs a sentence or two linking it to the topics to come | 07:33 | ||
| I like the idea of a review; it gives the reader a sense of where they have come from, where they are, and where the journey is headed | |||
| moritz | [ptc]: subs are looked up only in lexical scopes, no? | 07:34 | |
| [ptc]: re end, yes, that's true; will try to come up with some softer ending | |||
| [ptc] | true, but the sentence is a bit confusing... | 07:35 | |
| moritz | ok, will look at it again | ||
| [ptc] | I've got this atm: The second is that the compiler searches not only for subroutines in lexical scopes, but also for methods in the class of the object, as well as parent classes thereof. | 07:36 | |
| however I'm not sure if I've got that technically correct | |||
| moritz | that's not quite what I wanted to say | 07:37 | |
| [ptc] | ah, good that I asked :-) | ||
| initially it was: The second is that the compiler searches for subroutines in lexical scopes, but for methods in the class of the object, or parent classes thereof. | |||
| moritz | "The second is that if you call a subroutine, the compiler searches for this subroutine in the current lexical scope, and outer scopes. On the other hand, the methods for a method calls are looked up in the class of the object, and its superclasses." | 07:38 | |
| [ptc] | and the 'but' suggests to me that there's something being contrasted between the first and second parts of the sentence | ||
| ah, much better | |||
| moritz | but there is a constrast, no? | ||
| [ptc] | not in the original sentence; well, I didn't feel it was clear | ||
| moritz | ok, I'll go with the version I just wrote here | 07:39 | |
| [ptc] | I like the second version; I'll update the text with the new version and push as soon as I get to the office | ||
| just about to arrive in Bremen | |||
| moritz | ah, I just pushed my version | 07:40 | |
| hope you don't get a big merge conflict :/ | |||
| [ptc] | ups | 07:42 | |
| yeah, just go it :-) | |||
| ok, fixed and now to get out of the train! | 07:43 | ||
| moritz | [ptc]: thanks; don't miss your exit :-) | ||
| [ptc] | also just pushed my changes. Please review :-) | ||
| it's the last stop, so no real worries there | 07:44 | ||
| have a good day and I'll catch ya later! | |||
| moritz | have fun! Thanks for the changes, they look good. | 07:46 | |
|
17:20
FROGGS joined
|
|||