Which assumptions are wrong?
foo (3) + 4; # foo(7)
foo(3) + 4; # foo(3)
foo.(3) + 4; # foo(3)
foo .(3) + 4; # foo(3)
$foo (3) + 4; # syntax error
$foo(3) + 4; # $foo(3)
$foo.(3) + 4; # $foo(3)
$foo .(3) + 4; # $foo(3)
$o.m (3) + 4; # syntax error
$o.m(3) + 4; # m(3)
What do these mean?
$o.m .(foo) # m(foo) or m().(foo) ???
$o.m.(foo) # m(foo) or m().(foo) ???
In the case of m(foo), m().(foo) is the obvious way to call the returned
sub.
In the case of m().(foo), I would not have any idea how to put
whitespace in between method and opening paren.
This leads me to believe that $o.m.(foo) and $o.m .(foo) are $o.m(foo).
-
Parens cannot be used to group an expression which is then
used as a method name:
$o.("on_" ~ %methods{$event}).(); # $o(...)
Is there a way to do this without temporary variable?
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
