Shapes in Perl 6

Post #151,702 by JimWeirich 4/18/04 10:34:53 PM Reply	Shapes in Perl 6 Well, now that we know how to do objects in Perl6, it is time for the Shape example. You find my feeble attempt at Shapes in Perl6 below. But my perl (any version) skills are rather rusty, and there is no perl6 interpreter yet to validate against, so I submit it for peer review. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nclass Shape {\n has $.x\n has $.y\n method moveTo(newx, newy) {\n $.x = newx;\n $.y = newy;\n }\n method rMoveTo(newx, newy) {\n moveTo($.x + newx, $.y + newy);\n }\n}\n\nclass Rectangle is Shape {\n has $.width is rw;\n has $.height is rw;\n method draw() {\n print "Drawing a Rectange at:($.x,$.y), width $.width, height $.height\\n";\n }\n}\n\nclass Circle is Shape {\n has $.radius;\n method draw() {\n print "Draw a Circle at:($.x,$.y), radius $.radius\\n";\n }\n}\n\n\n@scribble = [Rectangle.new(10, 20, 5, 6), Circle.new(15, 25, 8)];\n\nfor $ashape in (@scribble) {\n $ashape.draw;\n $ashape.rMoveTo(100, 100);\n $ashape.draw;\n}\n\n$arectangle = Rectangle.new(0, 0, 15, 15)\n$arectangle.width = 30\n$arectangle.draw\n -- -- Jim Weirich jim@weirichhouse.org [link\|http://onestepback.org\|http://onestepback.org] --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
Post #151,815 by tablizer 4/19/04 2:13:22 PM Reply	Shapes again? aaaaaahhhhh! ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #151,861 by JimWeirich 4/19/04 9:32:56 PM Reply	Re: Shapes again? aaaaaahhhhh! I know it is not the most exciting example. But I still get queries on it. Just got two this past week. -- -- Jim Weirich jim@weirichhouse.org [link\|http://onestepback.org\|http://onestepback.org] --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
Post #152,005 by tablizer 4/20/04 8:21:03 PM Reply	re: aaaaaahhhhh! It is not so much about being "exciting", but many of the principles of shapes just don't extrapolate to the real world (at least as I see it). A more interesting toy example would be: [link\|http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/change.htm#people\|http://www.geocities...change.htm#people] ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #152,008 by admin 4/20/04 9:26:22 PM Reply	I like the background. :-) Don't limit the width of the text, though. There's more table background than text at my display setting. As far as the example goes, it's just more blather about people who abuse inheritance. yawn So Don't Do That Then. And as far as the next to last paragraph goes, you might be interested in the Spring Framework's application context stuff. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #152,026 by tablizer 4/21/04 12:46:38 AM 4/21/04 12:49:24 AM Reply	regarding formatting Don't limit the width of the text, though We had a 7-insult[1] discussion on that once. Text longer than about 60 to 100 characters per line is hard for most people to read. (Making an HTML formatting approach that scales well to all kinds of browser sizes can get a bit sticky.) [1] That is the number of guestimated names that CRC called me. It is the metric for length and intensity of the discussion, like a Ricter Scale. As far as the example goes, it's just more blather about people who abuse inheritance. yawn* So Don't Do That Then.* But OO is just a tangled mess of pointers without inheritance. You trade false charm for no charm. It becomes Goto-like. Put taxonomies/classifications in the database so that your code is not hard-wired to one particular "shape" or noun grouping taxonomy. ________________ oop.ismad.com Edited by tablizer April 21, 2004, 12:47:38 AM EDT Edited by tablizer April 21, 2004, 12:49:24 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #152,031 by pwhysall 4/21/04 1:20:00 AM 4/21/04 1:21:02 AM Reply	Re: regarding formatting Well, then those people can always resize their browser windows, can't they? Bottom line: It looks cack. Personally, I'd say ditch the background image altogether. That's so 1996. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog] Edited by pwhysall April 21, 2004, 01:21:02 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #152,106 by tablizer 4/21/04 5:00:38 PM Reply	One man's cack is anothers......um Well, then those people can always resize their browser windows, can't they? Many don't bother, and you have to keep sizing it back as you move around the web. Most want text ready-to-read without fiddling. Bottom line: It looks cack. If I get an anti-OO book deal, I'll use the money to pay somebody to overhaul all 100 pages. If I had to do it all over again, I would probably try a different approach, such as using a hosting service that allows server-side includes so that I don't have to duplicate the formatting stuff. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #152,118 by admin 4/21/04 7:21:42 PM Reply	Duplicating the formatting stuff... It's called "CSS". Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #152,123 by tablizer 4/21/04 8:38:36 PM Reply	Re: CSS But I want the header and the footer defined elsewhere, not just fonts and colors. Are you suggesting using CSS to replace HTML? Personally I think they should stick with one or the other. We don't need two different language syntaxes floating around. If XML was not powerful enough, then dump it for a better markup language. (Lispers suggest S-expressions.) ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #152,132 by admin 4/21/04 9:09:44 PM Reply	You said, "formatting" Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #152,135 by tablizer 4/21/04 9:11:52 PM Reply	Sorry, I meant in a general sense, not a per-element sense ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #152,141 by ben_tilly 4/21/04 9:16:38 PM Reply	Then you wanted "templating" instead. To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #152,249 by tablizer 4/22/04 3:51:28 PM Reply	You are right. That is a better word for it. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #152,056 by admin 4/21/04 8:38:28 AM Reply	Re: regarding formatting But OO is just a tangled mess of pointers without inheritance. You trade false charm for no charm. Expository and meaningless. It becomes Goto-like. No more so than function calls. Put taxonomies/classifications in the database so that your code is not hard-wired to one particular "shape" or noun grouping taxonomy. You didn't bother visiting Spring's site, did you. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #152,107 by tablizer 4/21/04 5:05:06 PM Reply	goto contest [It becomes Goto-like.] No more so than function calls. I disagree. Function calls are usually cleaner than OO, especially when you move taxonomy handling to the database and query languages instead of dancing around in object pointers. You didn't bother visiting Spring's site, did you. I looked around for about 10 minutes and 15 click bounces, but gave up when they failed to get to the point. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #152,119 by admin 4/21/04 7:22:43 PM Reply	Re: goto contest Then post a working example. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #152,125 by tablizer 4/21/04 8:41:47 PM 4/21/04 8:43:23 PM Reply	I already did an XBase version. (There is also an L version) [link\|http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/shapes.htm\|http://www.geocities...blizer/shapes.htm] However, shape examples don't tell us much either way. In biz apps, the rules are determined mostly by capricious humans, not Mother Nature. Mother Nature does not change the rules very often, and thus shapes are not a very useful metaphore to study change impact. ________________ oop.ismad.com Edited by tablizer April 21, 2004, 08:43:23 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #152,130 by admin 4/21/04 9:09:04 PM Reply	I'm not talking about shapes. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #152,137 by tablizer 4/21/04 9:13:31 PM Reply	What are you talking about? There is always this to compare: [link\|http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/chal06.htm\|http://www.geocities...blizer/chal06.htm] ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #152,139 by admin 4/21/04 9:13:55 PM Reply	Your "peoples" example. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #152,191 by tablizer 4/22/04 2:39:34 AM 4/22/04 2:44:39 AM Reply	People database It is a toy example; or more accurately, a "thought experiment". However, I suppose the CIA/FBI might have something like it to track suspicious people, such as John Lennon. It would be a huge database of info about people. I imagine most of such a system would either be ad-hoc querying and alert reports that signal suspicious behavior based on some score-giving algorithms. I suspect the schema would look something like: Table: People ------------- PersonID SSN FirstName Middle Last BirthDate HairColor ImageURL FatherRef (foriegn key to People) MotherRef .... Table: LivedLocations ----------- liveLocID personRef LocType (Apt, house, etc.) AddressRef (ref to location table) .... FromDate ToDate .... Table: WorkedAt ---------- .... Table: countriesVisited -------------- .... Table: suspiciousEncounters -------------- personRef1 personRef2 AddressRef spottedBy se_notes ..... (However, because multiple people can meet, perhaps we need a Meeting table, and then a many-to-many table for each person at the meeting.) ________________ oop.ismad.com Edited by tablizer April 22, 2004, 02:40:57 AM EDT Edited by tablizer April 22, 2004, 02:43:22 AM EDT Edited by tablizer April 22, 2004, 02:44:39 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #152,088 by jb4 4/21/04 2:13:12 PM Reply	Read for content The original text said: As far as the example goes, it's just more blather about people who abuse inheritance. yawn So Don't Do That Then. Then you blathered on something like: But OO is just a tangled mess of pointers without inheritance. You trade false charm for no charm. Now, for the comprehension impaired, the point of the original text was not to abuse inheritance. And Scott's admonition is correct: Don't Abuse Inheritance Then. I'm not exactly sure what the point of your answer was, except to: 1) demonstrate that your reading comprehension is substandard, or 2) demonstrate how very little you are willing to understand about OO, or 3) provide another data point for the old saw, "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #152,108 by tablizer 4/21/04 5:10:17 PM Reply	All these years, and still no slamdunk OO evidence Not sure what you complaint is WRT my "reading comprehension". I made a small point that is perhaps not related to inheritance. So what? 3) provide another data point for the old saw, "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." And what is with these Smalltalk fans who say, "everything is an object"? Double standard, eh? ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #152,188 by CRConrad 4/22/04 2:15:40 AM Reply	How would you know that ?!? "Slam-dunked" X times over... ...but since you only cover your ears and scream "No, that's no evidence!" every time it happens, how the heck could you tell if it's actually been "slam-dunked" or not? Here's an illustration: What if I went, "What's this bullshit about the Earth being round? Where's the evidence?" -- what could you say? Whatever you said, I'd just cover my ears and scream "No, that's no evidence!"... So that later, I could go, "All these years, and still no slamdunk roundness evidence!". That's exactly what you are doing. Now, do you think that my refusal to acknowledge the evidence would somehow prove that there's any actual contention about whether the Earth is flat or round? [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575\|Ashton Brown]
Post #152,192 by tablizer 4/22/04 2:53:57 AM Reply	Psychology, Psychology, Psychology The vast majority of OO evidence you guys give leads to psychology, not math. I don't/can't question that OO fits your own head better, however that may not extrapolate to other people. Admit it. Your OO evidence is psychology and only psychology. (And speculative, inconsistent psychology at that.) You don't have less lines of code, less places that need change per typical change request (unless you have a biased change list), etc. Nothing to measure. Even though rockets are complex, we can measure their payload, thrust, accuracy, explosions per mile, etc. We don't have that with OO. It just looks pretty to you and makes you feel warm inside. THATS IT! The endorphine metric. No numbers. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #152,237 by ben_tilly 4/22/04 2:28:43 PM Reply	And what else would you EXPECT? Programs are written and need to be understood by humans, not mathematical formulas. Of course the process of human comprehension and understanding is what is going to be relevant. That's been true for ages. Go read the classic [link\|http://www.acm.org/classics/oct95/\|Go To Statement Considered Harmful] and notice that it is all about psychology and understanding. Further note that plenty of supporters of using goto liberally were happy to talk about how goto fit their psychology. They are wrong - even people who like reaching for goto will drown in the resulting mess - but doing things poorly in a familiar way felt more comfortable than doing things well in an unfamiliar way. What parallels should be drawn to the subject of OO programming is left to the imagination of the reader. Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #152,246 by tablizer 4/22/04 3:28:34 PM Reply	Goto's and OO both share INconsistency Further note that plenty of supporters of using goto liberally were happy to talk about how goto fit their psychology. They are wrong I have never seen an objective comparision/study of goto fans versus block fans WRT productivity. If you know of one, please let me see it. Otherwise, you are only speculating. I suspect their development was just as fast as blockers, but not as fast when reading other's code. This is because there were no accepted lists of "goto patterns" ever developed. Each experienced goto'er developed their own patterns with no known effort to consolidate them. (More on patterns later.) Plus, they were never able to explain their philosophy in detail, something they have in common with OO'ers. Block statements are generally considered more consistent from programmer-to-programmer, and nesting of blocks provides visual cues to the nature of the flow that goto's have no identifiable counter-part. I have never heard/read a goto fan claim there is a clear visual component to goto's. (I suppose you could draw lines with pens, but that is an extra step.) Then again, I have not seen many attempts to document the thinking process of goto fans. What parallels should be drawn to the subject of OO programming is left to the imagination of the reader. That OO is basically navigational databases of the 60's resurrected as Dawn of the Dead zombies with a new name, and that navigational is the Goto of structuring because it lacks the consistency of relational, and thus parellels the consistency problem that goto's had (see above). Almost every OO fan's design is significantly different than another's. The Design Pattern movement is an attempt to remedy this, but is as futile as an attempt to form Goto patterns. Second, as the same information has to be involved in multiple patterns, you still end up with a mess. The best solution is a relational database, not yet more overlapped goofy code patterns. Relational is like code blocks and OO is like goto's: Spehgetti pointers. Goto's are just a big messy graph of flow, and OO is a big messy graph of relationship pointers. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #152,251 by ben_tilly 4/22/04 4:23:30 PM Reply	And there is one reader's imagination... To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #152,270 by tablizer 4/22/04 6:18:16 PM Reply	Dr. Codd was hallucinating? He saw the problems with the navigational DB's and sought to clean them up. He tossed pointers and path hopping and replaced it with relational algebra ("table math"). OO proponents complain that behavior is now integrated into modern versions of navigational structures, and so they are allegedly different and better. But, they are not. Behavior can also be put in tables (AKA Control Tables), but I often find that the relationship between behavior and data is too often not strong enough to justify it that often. It would help things a bit, but not revolutionary. OO dogma over-couples behavior and data for the sake of dogma itself I believe, not out of any natural affinity or relationship, at least not found in "business objects". ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #152,272 by jb4 4/22/04 6:27:08 PM Reply	Re: Dr. Codd was hallucinating? Wasn't he the one who came up with the concept of the Object Database? jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #152,274 by Another Scott 4/22/04 6:38:44 PM Reply	Doesn't look like it. [link\|http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/People/clamen/OODBMS/Manifesto/htManifesto/Manifesto.html\|The OO Database System Manifesto]'s Introduction: Whereas Codd's original paper [Codd 70] gave a clear specification of a relational database system (data model and query language), no such specification exists for object-oriented database systems [Maier 89]. We are not claiming here that no complete object-oriented data model exists, indeed many proposals can be found in the literature (see [Albano et al. 1986], [L\\'ecluse and Richard 89], [Carey et al. 88] as examples), but rather that there is no consensus on a single one. Opinion is slowly converging on the gross characteristics of a family of object-oriented systems, but, at present, there is no clear consensus on what an object-oriented system is, let alone an object-oriented database system. The second characteristic of the field is the lack of a strong theoretical framework. To compare object-oriented programming to logic programming, there is no equivalent of [Van Emdem and Kowalski 76]. The need for a solid underlying theory is obvious: the semantics of concepts such as types or programs are often ill defined. The absence of a solid theoretical framework, makes consensus on the data model almost impossible to achieve. [...] It is important to agree now on a definition of an object-oriented database systems. As a first step towards this goal, this paper suggests characteristics that such systems should possess. We expect that the paper will be used as a straw man, and that others will either invalidate or confirm the points mentioned here. Note that this paper is not a survey of the state of the art on OODBS technology and do not pretend to assess the current status of the technology, it merely proposes a set of definitions. Just hoping to fan the flames to get more light than heat this time around. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #152,280 by ben_tilly 4/22/04 8:04:59 PM Reply	It was a reference to an earlier post Specifically this one, What parallels should be drawn to the subject of OO programming is left to the imagination* of the reader.* Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #152,271 by jb4 4/22/04 6:25:45 PM Reply	But in the immortal words of Ringo: "But I don't HAAAAVE an imagination!" jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #152,290 by tablizer 4/22/04 9:14:12 PM Reply	Goto's are a Rorschach test: we see what we hate in it ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #152,316 by pwhysall 4/23/04 1:54:18 AM Reply	Go program in DCL, then. GOTO is all ya got :) Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #152,319 by tablizer 4/23/04 3:07:46 AM Reply	I think you missed my point ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #152,089 by JimWeirich 4/21/04 2:14:01 PM Reply	Purpose of Shapes Topmind: It is not so much about being "exciting", but many of the principles of shapes just don't extrapolate to the real world (at least as I see it). The purpose of the Shapes examples is to demonstrate implementation techniques for dynamic / runtime polymorphism. It is well suited for such a purpose. It is not a model to be extrapolated to all OO architectures. Topmind: A more interesting toy example would be: [link\|http://www.geocities...change.htm#people\|http://www.geocities...change.htm#people] []* Your Employee rant (I didn't find any actual example) would be poorly suited to my purposes. How would including issues not addressed by dynamic polymorphism improve the illustration of the implementation of dynamic polymorphism. It would just cloud the issue. However, regarding your rants: if you ever decide to expand that People-Type thought experiment into a real example (real and complete working code), then let me know. I would love to compare. -- -- Jim Weirich jim@weirichhouse.org [link\|http://onestepback.org\|http://onestepback.org] --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
Post #152,090 by boxley 4/21/04 2:21:08 PM Reply	sniggle :-) working code "You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #152,111 by tablizer 4/21/04 5:18:59 PM 4/21/04 5:49:55 PM Reply	derth of more applicable examples How would including issues not addressed by dynamic polymorphism improve the illustration of the implementation of dynamic polymorphism. It would just cloud the issue. I was only addressing the practicality of the examples, not the demonstration of dynamic polymorphism. My general complaint is a derth of more applicable examples. Shapes, animals, stacks, and device drivers can only take one so far. However, regarding your rants: if you ever decide to expand that People-Type thought experiment into a real example (real and complete working code), then let me know. I would love to compare. I haven't requested working code from OO'ers for that. Even a general skeleton would be a start. We can flesh out more later. Working OO code is often too bloated for my tastes anyhow. BTW, I have not found a satisfactory p/r solution to the "employee types" problem either. It is just that OO is not an improvement. ________________ oop.ismad.com Edited by tablizer April 21, 2004, 05:49:55 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #152,419 by JimWeirich 4/23/04 7:56:30 PM Reply	Re: derth of more applicable examples TM: I was only addressing the practicality of the examples, not the demonstration of dynamic polymorphism. My general complaint is a derth of more applicable examples. Shapes, animals, stacks, and device drivers can only take one so far. Well, it is apparent that you think you people-type example has legs. If so, make a real example out of it. Specify some requirements so some code can be written. Shoot, if you don't want to write the p/r code, I'll do it for you. If not, its time to take down that page because it is obvious that you are merely arguing against a strawman (i.e. OO design that only the inexperienced would propose). TM: I haven't requested working code from OO'ers for that. [...] That's misleading. You only ask for sketches ("It can either be real code or pseudo-code." [link\|http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/challeng.htm\|http://www.geocities...izer/challeng.htm]), but then you critisize the examples for omitting code ("The OOP version has simply put many of the details somewhere else." [link\|http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/chal01.htm\|http://www.geocities...blizer/chal01.htm]). That's why I'm only interested in working code. No hand-waving need apply. -- -- Jim Weirich jim@weirichhouse.org [link\|http://onestepback.org\|http://onestepback.org] --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
Post #152,114 by ben_tilly 4/21/04 6:40:31 PM Reply	Your URL is broken From the breakage, I wonder if Scott was playing around with the URL code and forgot that while you truncate what you show, you don't truncate the actual URL... Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #152,129 by admin 4/21/04 9:08:40 PM Reply	Nope. That's what he posted. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #152,162 by JimWeirich 4/21/04 10:11:21 PM Reply	Re: Your URL is broken I just cut and pasted text from the original article. The forum software decided to try to make it into a link. The link is correct in the original article. -- -- Jim Weirich jim@weirichhouse.org [link\|http://onestepback.org\|http://onestepback.org] --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
Post #152,164 by Another Scott 4/21/04 10:22:29 PM Reply	Very long URLs have ellipsis inserted in the URL. (new thread) Created as new thread #152163 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=152163\|Very long URLs have ellipsis inserted in the URL.]
Post #151,851 by ben_tilly 4/19/04 7:12:52 PM Reply	Corrected version I don't know Perl 6, but I asked the expert (aka Damian Conway), and he identified some errors. Here is a corrected version:\r\n \r\nclass Shape {\r\n has $.x;\r\n has $.y;\r\n method moveTo($newx, $newy) {\r\n $.x = $newx;\r\n $.y = $newy;\r\n }\r\n method rMoveTo($newx, $newy) {\r\n .moveTo($.x + $newx, $.y + $newy);\r\n }\r\n}\r\n\r\nclass Rectangle is Shape {\r\n has $.width is rw;\r\n has $.height is rw;\r\n method draw() {\r\n print "Drawing a Rectange at:($.x,$.y), width $.width, height $.height\\n";\r\n }\r\n}\r\n\r\nclass Circle is Shape {\r\n has $.radius;\r\n method draw() {\r\n print "Draw a Circle at:($.x,$.y), radius $.radius\\n";\r\n }\r\n}\r\n\r\n\r\n@scribble = (Rectangle.new(x=>10, y=>20, width=>5, height->6), Circle.new(x=>15, y=>25, radius=>8));\r\n\r\nfor @scribble -> $ashape {\r\n $ashape.draw;\r\n $ashape.rMoveTo(100, 100);\r\n $ashape.draw;\r\n}\r\n\r\n$arectangle = Rectangle.new(x=>0, y=>0, width=>15, height=>15);\r\n$arectangle.width = 30;\r\n$arectangle.draw;\r\n \r\nCheers, \r\nBen To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act\r\n- [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #151,860 by JimWeirich 4/19/04 9:32:03 PM Reply	Re: Corrected version Thanks. I figured I missed some things. -- -- Jim Weirich jim@weirichhouse.org [link\|http://onestepback.org\|http://onestepback.org] --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)

Welcome to IWETHEY!