On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 09:40:16AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> 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.
If $_ is lexical by default (did larry say this somewhere?), then I'm
sure we can make it dynamic on request ala:
for $_ is temp <> {
printRec;
}
I may have the syntax slightly borked but you get the idea.
I read the original posters message the same as Piers though.
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
