Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We could make "return" a method as well as a built-in sub. That gives us
>
> Loop.return($x)
> Sub.return($x)
> Topic.return($x)
> Thread.return($x)
> Block.return($x)
> There.return($x)
>
> or
>
> return Loop: $x
> return Sub: $x
> return Topic: $x
> return Thread: $x
> return Block: $x
> return There: $x
>
> BLOCK_NAME could come in under a rule that says that if the classname lookup
> on an identifier fails, and there's an outer labeled scope of that name,
> it is treated as a reference to that object. Otherwise it's an error,
> since we don't do barewords anymore.
>
> I suppose a case could be made that the innermost block scope is
> really named MY, not Block. So it could be MY.return($x).
>
> If the method is named "return" however, we might run into ambiguity with
>
> return $x;
How about, if 'caller' returns a continuation...
class Object;
method return { MY.caller.return(@_) }
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
