I wasn't thinking of those as types (and it wasn't meant as a final product, just an example of the way i was thinking about roles and does), I was thinking of them as roles since we are talking about does, and does talks about roles.
A given mode of dereferencing an object is merely an interface to that object. And as its an interface its a role. "Can i treat reference $x as a reference to an array?" could equally be thought of "can $x play the role of an array?".
In reply to Re^6: I don't understand UNIVERSAL::DOES()
by demerphq
in thread I don't understand UNIVERSAL::DOES()
by rlb3
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |