Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from May 2007
At 5:36 PM -0600 5/31/07, David Green wrote: >On 5/29/07, Larry Wall wrote: >>In any case, the Huffman coding is probably right because you want >>to declare Any parameters more often than you want to talk about any >>possible kind of Object, I suspect. > >Are Objects really Everything? What about native types like int -- >or (thanks to autoboxing) should I really be thinking of them as >Objects with built-in optimiser hints? Not that I have a good >example of why you'd want to specify a native-only type; I'm only >asking out of pedantic curiosity. If that's true, then it would probably reinforce my argument for renaming Object to Universal. I said before that it is better for type names, or at least the most important or root part of the name of a type, should describe what it represents rather than how it is implemented; Object smacks more of an implementation detail. If it is true that int et al (ignoring autoboxing) is not conceived of as an object by users, that reinforces the idea that Universal sounds more like "everything" than Object does. -- Darren DuncanThread Previous | Thread Next