On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 04:26, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Trey Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think I've missed something, even after poring over the archives for
> > some hours looking for the answer. How does one write defaulting
> > subroutines a la builtins like print() and chomp()? Assume the code:
> >
> > for <> {
> > printRec;
> > }
> > printRec "Done!";
> >
> > sub printRec {
> > chomp;
> > print ":$_:\n";
> > }
>
> You could take advantage of subroutine signatures and multi-dispatch
>
> sub printRec() { printRec($_) } # No args, therefore no new topic.
> sub printRec($rec) { .chomp; print ":$rec:\n" } # 1 arg
I think was he was saying is that your first printRec would not have a
$_ available to it (lexically scoped, as I understand it).
You've got a problem here, which I don't think there's a mechanism for.
Perhaps
sub printRec(->$rec)
I'm just throwing that out, but some way to say that the argument
defaults to getting the topic would seem to be called for.
