> This would change the perl5 meaning of lvalue subroutines. Currently
> you must have the lvalue as the last value before the return, and the
> assignment is implicitly done by Perl. I advocate making it explicit:
>
> # this is perl5
> sub foo :lvalue {
> $variable; # am I rvalue or lvalue sub? I don't know
> }
> foo = 5; # implicitly $variable = 5
>
> I would now have this as:
>
> # this is perl6
> sub foo :lvalue ($new) {
> $variable = $new;
> }
So how do I do:
foo += 5;
foo -= 5;
foo *= 5;
foo /= 5;
foo %= 5;
foo ||= 5;
foo &= 5;
#etc.
(which I can do now)?
I think the proposal is cute, but dead wrong -- because it solves too
specific a problem.
I intend to counter-RFC it with an even more general lvalue mechanism
than is currently available, plus a suggestion that operator= be
overloadable.
When that truck-load of tuits I ordered arrives.
Damian
