John M. Dlugosz wrote: > The synopses are contradictary over the way 'constant' works. First it says > that it is a declarator like 'my'.
That's what STD.pm says: token scope_declarator:my { <sym> <scoped> {*} } token scope_declarator:our { <sym> <scoped> {*} } token scope_declarator:state { <sym> <scoped> {*} } token scope_declarator:constant { <sym> <scoped> {*} } token scope_declarator:has { <sym> <scoped> {*} } > Then in S12 it shows > > my constant ... > and > our constant ... > > that is, independant from the my or our declarator. I grep'ped STD.pm tentatively for other occurrences of 'constant', and couldn't find where that should be implemented. > Assuming the second way is newer/better, what is the grammar for this? Is it > a declarator if used on its own, or a different category? > > Oh, and should it still say that if you leave off the optional 'my' or 'our' > that it defaults to 'my', or should it be 'our' like everything else? > > --John -- Moritz Lenz http://moritz.faui2k3.org/ | http://perl-6.de/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature