Re: [svn:perl6-synopsis] r14401 - doc/trunk/design/syn Darren Duncan wrote: > Jonathan Lang wrote: > >I see no mention of C<@@x> in this section.  I would assume that > >C<@@x> may be bound to any object that does the C > >role, with a note to the effect that the C role does > >the C role (and thus anything that C<@x> may be bound to, > >C<@@x> may also be bound to). > > I would argue that "multi-dimensional" is too generic a name for what > you describe.  In particular, I wouldn't say that something with that > name "does positional", at least in a conventional sense. ...another reason to consider my more recent suggestion of replacing 'Positional', 'Associative', etc. with 'sigil:<@>', 'sigil:<%>', and so on.  '@@x' would then bind to any object that does 'sigil:<@@>'. > If we have a multidim role, don't make it do positional.  Those can > only be combined on a case by case basis.  If you do make multidim > positional, then you might as well say that every type does ordered, > because that makes as much sense. I suggested this because anything that can be bound to '@@' can also be bound to '@'; this implies to me that 'sigil:<@@>' does 'sigil:<@>'.  That said, you have a point, in that '@@' vs. '@' is a strange dog; an object that is bound to '@@' behaves differently than one that's bound to '@', which would not be the case if we relied solely on something to the effect of 'sigil:<@@> does sigil:<@>' to handle matters. --  Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang