On 15/05/05 11:17 -0400, Rob Kinyon wrote:
> On 5/15/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Autrijus Tang skribis 2005-05-15 19:28 (+0800):
> > > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 01:19:53PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> > > > Or was your choice of words poor, and did you not mean to discuss the
> > > > dot's *default*, but instead a standard way to write the current
> > > > invocant?
> > > I think what Rob suggested is that:
> > > method ($foo)
> > > means
> > > method ($self: $foo)
> >
> > Then I hereby apologise to Rob for my own poor choice of words.
> >
> > I don't like the idea of having a normal identifier ever used by
> > default, except $_, which is already aliased to the invocant.
>
> Autrijus is much more eloquent that (apparently) I can ever hope to
> be. Thank you.
>
> If I understand correctly, we're discussing what should happen if you
> do something like .method($foo) within another method and if there
> should be shorthand way of writing whatever it is.
>
> Right now, P6 has $?SELF and I'm saying that instead of using $?SELF,
> we should use $self wherever $?SELF would be used. $_ is still the
> topic and would be the default invocant if you have .method($foo).
> What I'm saying is that you can have
>
> method ( Int foo ) {
> $self.otherMethod( foo );
> }
+1
FWIW, after reading this whole conundrum, I think that erring on the
side of pragmatism seems like the right choice. If I jump into some
source code and see:
$self.some_such();
I am going to feel right at home. No doubt about it.
As to *how* it works (by hook, crook, preclaration or macro etc), I
leave it to Larry to do the proper hand waving to make it fit in cleanly
(for some Wallian definition of clean).
Cheers, Brian
> and it will DWIM. Just like Java, C++, and Javascript. (Yes, I'm using
> JS as part of my argument.)
>
> If you have
> method ( Int foo ) {
> .otherMethod( foo );
> }
>
> That would be
> method ( Int foo ) {
> $_.otherMethod( foo );
> }
>
> Just like expected.
>
> Rob
