>Basically, it "fixes" the indirect notation by making all of these Do >The Right Thing: > $r = new CGI (@args); # CGI->new(@args) > $r = new(CGI, @args); # CGI->new(@args) > $r = new(CGI @args); # CGI->new(@args) >It's all in the details (I'm sure you see the edge cases already, but >they're addressed), so I invite people to read it. I posted it to -subs. That's hardly the problem with indirect object syntax. Besides what I just mentioned, there is the fact that it's acting in a fashion that you could call stronger than a unary operator in terms of precedence. --tom
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should be fu... Johan Vromans
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should be functi... David L. Nicol
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should be functi... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should be fu... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should b... John Porter
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should b... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions shou... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should be fu... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should b... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions shou... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should be fu... John Porter
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should be functions Damian Conway
- RE: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should be functions Fisher Mark