On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:59:23PM +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote: : On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 06:46:50PM +0800, Audrey Tang wrote: : > >Does this mean a single named parameter called $x, or a default invocant : > >and a single required positional named $x? : > : > "A default invocant" prolly doesn't make sense there... There's : > nothing to "default" to. :-) : : What invocant is constructed in this signature then? : : method foo ($just_a_named_param) : : Is the signature for &foo really the same as that of bar? : : sub bar ($just_a_named_param)
Maybe methods and submethods turn method foo ($just_a_named_param) into method foo ($ : $just_a_named_param) Since we regularized invocants, there's much less need for an empty invocant, so maybe the $ is required there if you put the :. If so, we should probably explicitly say that there are no variables of the form "$:", "$;", or "$,", so those will always be taken as "$ :", "$ ;", and "$ ," respectively. At least within signatures. In any case, prefix ':' is not an operator. In :(:$foo) the :$ starts a token, so you'd have to put space between to mean :(: $foo). : I was sort of assuming you could tell by a signature if it was for a : method or a sub. I'm trying to decide if sub ($self: $just_a_named_param) can meaningfully put anything into $self. It seems doubtful, and it should probably be submethod ($self: $just_a_named_param) So for the jet-lagged moment I think your assumption is valid. I might jet-delag at any moment, however... Larry