> -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 04:25:45PM -0400, Austin Hastings wrote: > : In this case, the reliance on saying: > : > : if (+$x > 9) ... > : > : to disambiguate logical/arithmetic/string/whatever context in > expressions is > : going to sit at cross purposes to the +-as-required-arg usage. > It'll be yet > : another source of learning curve gradient to no real purpose. > : > : method x ($me: $req, ?$opt, +$namedopt, *%named, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) {...} > : vs: > : method x($me: $req, ?$opt, ~$namedopt, *%named, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) {...} > > Using ~ is not an improvement in that respect. Named arguments are > not in string context.
True. I hear that backtick is available. ;-) My point, though, was that both are about the same, visually. I could at least see the "string" -> "has a name" association. In this case, though, perhaps an explicit reference to the regex-meaning, as opposed to the contex-meaning, will get the point across. To answer Dan's posting: I fully expect to never use any of these sigils, myself. I'm sure there will be traits for this- nice verbose traits. (Signatures are about as write-once as you can get...) method x( requires:invocant $me, requires $requisite, $mandatory, $necessary, optional $maybe, $possible, $potential, $unlikely, named $yclept, $hight, $aka, named:* %named, va_list @list) {...} =Austin