Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
I guess you're right :-) I was thinking of ambiguity, like
sub foo :multi(Integer, Integer)
.param pmc i :invocant
.param pmc j
.param pmc k :invocant
end
sub foo :multi (Integer, Integer)
.param pmc j :invocant
.param pmc k :invocant
end
but I guess parrot will see that the other foo has 2 parameters while the
first has 3, and make the selection based on that
Like :optional, the :invocant parameters must all be contiguous. So,
only the second of those is valid, though you can have as many
non-:invocant parameters as you like after the last :invocant parameter.
Also, :invocant parameters can't be :optional.
BTW, :invocant looks a bit like ".invcant", which is also a directive. Can
that confuse people?
Do you mean ".invocant"? They are related concepts, as .invocant sets
the single invocant of a method call, while :invocant tells a
multisub/method to treat a set of parameters as invocants. Any .sub
marked with :method and :multi always treats the method invocant as if
it was marked with :invocant, even though it isn't retrieved with .param.
We might want to consider adding a standard prefix to .invocant, as well
as to .arg, .result, etc, to make it clear that they're a group of
directives all combined to make a single PCC call.
Allison
