"Larry Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 04:25:45PM -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
> :
> : method x ($me: $req, ?$opt, +$namedopt, *%named, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) {...}
> : vs:
> : method x($me: $req, ?$opt, ~$namedopt, *%named, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) {...}
>
> Using ~ is not an improvement in that respect. Named arguments are
> not in string context.
That's true, but optional positional arguments like ?$opt are not in boolean
context either.
"Larry Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 09:02:14AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>
> Hmm... I'm quite sure that I like ~ better than + for mnemonic purposes.
>
> I think + is easier to see. Mnemonic value is a secondary issue in
> something that will be used so heavily.
As Larry mentioned, these are primarily visual parameter zone markers with
mnemonic associations to other more common punctuation. If '+' is going to
mean anything attached to a parameter, I can't get beyond associating it
with the parameter being required (possibly among other things). I may be
just an average programmer, but I believe that is the point of the both the
visual impact and mnemonic association: what would the Average Perl [6] Joe
make of it?
"Dan Sugalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Looking at this, all I can think is "I hope there's a long-form of all
this punctuation notation for those of us old and feeble folks".
Without a clear assumption one way or the other, I imagine that Dan's
suggestion is best: spell-it-out.
Especially when the "requiredness" of the parameter is specifically removed
by the named-only marker, I just feel that '+' is not the best choice.
-Dov Wasserman
