On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 10:25:39PM +0000, Damian Conway wrote:
> Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>
> > It seems odd to require two syntactic elements to achieve one semantic.
> > And actually, after looking at A5, that's not what Larry wrote:
> >
> > my $x;
> > / (\S*) { let $x = .pos } \s* foo /
>
> A typo, I believe. He has been very consistent in discussions that
> hypothetical bind, rather than assigning.
This continues to make no sense to me. The "hypotheticality" of a
variable seems quite orthogonal to what you do with it (bind, assign,
whatever). Why should these two things be intimate? And if they are,
does that mean that these:
/ (\S*) { let $x = .pos } \s* foo /
/ (\S*) { let $x; ... $x = .pos } \s* foo /
throw some sort of exception or error? That could be surprising if
the ellipses are really some long bit of code. (Why is that scalar
different from any other scalar? Because it's hypothetical. Suddenly
we've a new "class" of variable that people have to be aware of)
Anyway, I like the semantics described by Ken Fox earlier. (And, in
fact, that's what I thought happened until just recently :-)
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
