So what's the rationale behind the latest changes? I thought p6 consistently regarded the sigil as part of the name; seems like that should go for named parameters, too. In fact, sigils would seem to be a good way to distinguish named parameters from pairs.
Alternatively, reserve either :k(v) or k=>v for named parameters and use the other for pairs. I don't see the value of conflating those two things syntactically - is it just for compatibility with p5 modules that take their parameters as hashes? I freely admit to myopia and a lot less time thinking about this stuff, but using extra parens or autoquoting vs explicit quotes to distinguish named params from pair arguments feels wrong. On 8/25/06, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/25/06, Michael Snoyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I asked this same question on perl6-users, but no one really seemed to have > a definitive answer, so please forgive me for reasking. > > I was wondering how named arguments would work when parameters of different > types had the same name, ie sub foo($bar, @bar, &bar) {...}. That's probably an error at compile time, given the new provision that '@bar' => ... is not a named argument so we have no way to distinguish between the parameters. Luke
-- Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>