Personally, I like the looks of
sub foo($a, $b is given) { ... }
> Does this mean that we allow/encourage uses of $_ other than as a default
> for an optional argument? I think it would be less confusing and
> error-prone to associate the underscore-aliasing with the parameter $_
> will be replacing, i.e. this
>
> sub foo($a, $b = given) { ... }
>
> vs this
>
> sub foo($a; $b) is given($b) { ... }
>
> or this
>
> sub foo($a; $b) is given($c) {
> $b //= $c;
> ...
> }
>
> Furthermore, if the caller can pass undef for the second parameter, I
> don't see a way to distinguish in the third variant between a legitimately
> passed undef, for which we don't want $_, and a missing optional argument,
> for which we do.
>
> /s
>
>
--
Adam Lopresto ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/
"It's times like these that I wish I was a leper" --Bob.
