On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 11:25:40AM +0000, Smylers wrote:
: Jonathan Lang writes:
: 
: >  For the record, I think that "superdoes" should be spelled "done_by".
: 
: I think it's unlikely that Larry will incorporate any keywords that
: contain underscores -- certainly not without at least searching for a
: single word that sums up the concept in question.

And I'm not even gonna do that if I can't be convinced of a use case
beyond "Num does Complex".  And since my sinuses are full of the crud
that is going around right now, I'm not in a very convincable mood.
With the little sense of smell I have left, this smells like INTERCAL's
"COME FROM" statement to me, trading a teeny bit of notational convenience
in one spot for oversized headaches elsewhere.  Most Perl programmers
are not interested in type theory, and complexifying the little bit of
intentional typing we're introducing with roles will simply cause most
people to avoid it like the plague.  We might *possibly* get away with
reopening roles like we can reopen a class:

    role Num is also does Complex {
	method im {...}
    }

but roles are really supposed to be fairly immutable in the Perl 6
scheme of things, so such a declaration would probably have to require
that the Num role never have been composed into anything else yet.

Or we could say that you can't reopen the Num role; you can only
reopen the Num class and mix in the Complex role.  That's where it
stands at the moment.

Larry