On 10/7/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Miroslav Silovic skribis 2005-10-07 13:07 (+0200): > > Can an inline role be named? > > 0 but role is_default {} > > This is a nice idea. It would require named roles (and to really be > succesful, also classes, subs, methods, ...) declarations to be > expressions, but I see no downside to that.
Well, I see a cognitive downside. That is, package declarations (the default) don't create closures. It's like this: sub foo($x) { sub bar() { return $x; } return &bar; } foo(42).(); # ???? Restricting expressions to anonymous subs forces you to say what you mean. Because sometimes when you say: 0 but role is_default { } You're going to mean package role, and some of the time you're going to mean lexical. I'd be more in favor of: 0 but my role is_default { } In fact, it may be the case that that's already valid. Luke