Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from March 2005
HaloO chromatic,
you wrote:
> I don't understand the question (I don't recognize the words "lubs" or
> "glbs", for example), but I don't think this has anything at all to do
> with multiple inheritance.
Sorry, that was given only in the picture:
lub = least upper bound (also known as supremum)
glb = greatest lower bound (infimum)
see e.g. http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~gawron/mathling/poset/posets.pdf
> I don't think that roles are necessarily unsubstantiable; class and role
> names should occupy the same namespace.
That is the case in Perl 6, isn't it? Makes sense to me. And subs are
in the same name space as well, right?
> It ought to be possible to have
> class A with a particular set of methods and class B with a set of
> methods of the same name and similar enough semantics for the entire set
> of behavior of those methods and be able to mark class B as performing
> the A role
Hmm, like that?
class A { ... }
class B does A { ... }
> and to be able to pass B objects into code that asks for A
> objects and have things just work without A or B necessarily having to
> share code and definitely without them being related to each other in
> any sort of inheritance relationship.
Types/roles and classes form different hierarchies. The former is
partially ordered by checking the does relation the latter by checking
the isa relation. By letting classes do roles you create families
of objects that do a certain behaviour but don't share the same
implementation. On the other hand areas of code happen to require
certain functionality. The entity that checks that they are met is the
typechecker. My question basically is about how you declare your
intensions so that the type checker can DWYM. E.g. if you were to specify
comparability so that you are just comparing the right things.
> Maybe there's not enough behavior in a role to make it a full class, but
> there's enough behavior that it's useful across classes horizontally and
> it deserves its own name.
My question is not about completeness of roles versus classes but about
how the Perl 6 type system shall work. Or better which assertions it is supposed
to make about code. This is very usefull when it comes to programming in the
large and of course it allows good optimization if the typecheker can proof
e.g. that no dynamic dispatch is needed because there is only one statically
determinable match anyway.
> Maybe that's not helpful, but I did warn that I didn't understand the
> question!
I'm struggling, too.
--
TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next