Re: Sanity checking for namespace and other abuses
[email protected] (Reini Urban)
| Newsgroups | perl.module-authors |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> On Oct 26, 2016, at 4:31 PM, David Mertens <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > I am writing a keyword hook, C::Blocks. I have realized that my hook could be made more powerful if I could indicate optional type information for variables. > > Question 1: Perl has support for declaring a variable's type, but it is intended to be used with the fields pragma. I get the impression that this is rarely used and I want to use it for something entirely different. Can anybody see a problem with this? yes, I have a problem with that. no, types are not only used for the field pragma. cperl has proper type support and any "modern perl” needs type support. B::CC, the optimizing compiler, has coretype support even in perl5. Every lexical has the optional type stash and better signature implementations set that also, so that perl5 can finally look like a modern perl as perl6 or cperl, but not like Moose/Mouse/Moo/… or even worse, old-style fields. > Question 2: I want to keep the class names for the type system relatively short. Can anyone think of problems for names such as: > > C::double_t > C::int_t > C::IV_t See the cperl coretype names. If they are the same, use it, otherwise use your own variants. Reini Urban [email protected]