Paris write-up

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
Paris write-up – I'd be pretty disappointed if "use" didn't still work similarly to the way it does now. These examples I think are typical of what ...
Hi Sam, this will still work. you can still do use(MyClass.class){} what you cannot do is def x = MyClass.class use(x) {} chee...
Re: Paris write-up – On 29 Nov 2005, at 19:47, Dierk Koenig wrote: > Hi Sam, > > this will still work. > > you can still do > > use(MyC...
RE: Paris write-up – Yes, that's been said. I must confess it irritates me. For most cases of 'use' that I can currently think of, it makes it makes it very awkwa...
Re: Paris write-up – On 30 Nov 2005, at 07:46, Dierk Koenig wrote: > Yes, that's been said. > > I must confess it irritates me. For most cases of 'use'...
RE: Paris write-up – from what I remember: > Now what does this construct introduce > > 1/ the ability to add and change functions and properties on &qu...
Re: Paris write-up – On 30 Nov 2005, at 08:59, Dierk Koenig wrote: > >> 2/ the ability to get the compiler to relax it's draconian parse >> rules...
RE: Paris write-up – Isn't that covered by the new 'builder closure' handling? > -----Original Message----- > From: John Wilson [mailto:tug@...] > Sent: ...
Re: Paris write-up – On 30/11/05, Dierk Koenig <dierk.koenig@...> wrote: > Isn't that covered by the new 'builder closure' handling? The purpose of the pr...
On 30 Nov 2005, at 09:29, Guillaume Laforge wrote: > On 30/11/05, Dierk Koenig <dierk.koenig@...> wrote: >> Isn't that covered by...
On 5 Dec 2005, at 05:53, James Strachan wrote: > > The MOP and introspection APIs do *NOT* solve the horribly broken > name re...
On 5 Dec 2005, at 13:59, John Wilson wrote: > On 5 Dec 2005, at 05:53, James Strachan wrote: >> The MOP and introspection APIs do *NOT*...
On 5 Dec 2005, at 09:56, James Strachan wrote: >> I think that in both a script and a class vanilla names should be >> resolve...
Re: Paris write-up – On 30 Nov 2005, at 09:22, Dierk Koenig wrote: > sn't that covered by the new 'builder closure' handling? The builder closure stuff is...
John Wilson schrieb: [...] > I believe that the idea was that the construct was allowed to add stuff > to the current class and hence t...
On 30 Nov 2005, at 13:25, Jochen Theodorou wrote: > John Wilson schrieb: > [...] >> I believe that the idea was that the constr...
John Wilson schrieb: [...] > I'm not sure what you mean by "filewide use" I'm assuming that you mean > the construct I called...
On 30 Nov 2005, at 15:27, Jochen Theodorou wrote: > sure, all I want to say is that we should find a way to make Sam's > work possib...
John Wilson schrieb: [...] > Now I am unsure if it needs supporting or not :) it's a difference between support it directly through synt...
Re: Paris write-up – Could we step back a little and explain the use case (pardon the pun :) We're defining a closure, then after the closure is created we're th...
On 30 Nov 2005, at 08:30, James Strachan wrote: > > We're defining a closure, then after the closure is created we're > then add...
I expect that for most usages, the file-wide 'use' directive will be used... cheers Mittie > -----Original Message----- > From: Die...
Re: Paris write-up – On 29 Nov 2005, at 19:47, Dierk Koenig wrote: > Hi Sam, > > this will still work. > > you can still do > > use(MyClass...
James Strachan schrieb: > On 29 Nov 2005, at 19:47, Dierk Koenig wrote: > >> Hi Sam, >> >> this will still work. ...