At 11:49 AM 2/15/01 -0800, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > >>>>> "Peter" == Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >Peter> Quite. But on a tangent, I see no good reason why this shouldn't be >Peter> given the same interpretation as "my ($a, $b, $c)" on the grounds that >Peter> functions taking list arguments that omit their parentheses swallow up >Peter> the following list. > >*some* functions. localtime doesn't. Er, that's why I said functions taking list arguments. localtime takes a scalar argument: $ perl -le 'print prototype("CORE::localtime")' ;$ But if we consider my to be a function (something of a stretch since it has compile-time actions), then it must take a list argument otherwise my ($a, $b, $c) would be illegal. > my is a unary function, prototyped >vaguely as (\$) or (\@) or (\%). More like ((\$)|(\@)|(\%))+, for want of a better notation... -- Peter Scott Pacific Systems Design Technologies
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Dan Sugalski
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Peter Scott
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs David Grove
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Nathan Wiger
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Randal L. Schwartz
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs abigail
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs abigail
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Nicholas Clark
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Peter Scott