Em Qui, 2009-03-05 às 12:58 -0300, Daniel Ruoso escreveu: > What really got me confused is that I don't see what problem this change > solves, since it doesn't seem that a signature that expects an invocant > (i.e.: cares about invocant) will accept a call without an invocant, so > "method foo($b,$c) is export" still need to have a transformed signature > in the sub version of foo.
Thinking again, Unless that actually means that we're really removing all the runtime semantics around the invocant... and methods implicitly do "my $self = shift" all the time... That'd be sad... we loose "invocant" semantics... SMOP will require a HUGE refactoring... :( daniel
