Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from August 2001
Uri writes: > DC> One might also envisage a C<use strict 'typing'> pragma to require > DC> that all lexicals be typed. > > do you mean lexical params in a sub signature? or all lexicals in the > current scope which contains the pragma? any(@above). Some people will want one; some, the other. We may need two pragmas. ;-) > required typing for all lexicals feels too strong. many lexicals are > just ordinary scalars and don't type well unless we require an > int/string/float/ref type. Yep. But people want static type-checking and that's the only reasonable way to get it. > what about making that mean that any scalar being assigned a method call > (compile time checked only), must have a type? it would not be too broad > and should be simple to check and it has useful behavior. It should probably extend to any variable used as a subroutine/method argument, but it's a good idea. DamianThread Previous | Thread Next