> > My imagination suggests to me that in a
> > typical short perl 6 script
>
> That's some imagination you've got there! ;-)
:>
> My estimate (based on the -- not inconsiderable --
> code base of my own modules) is closer to 5%.
Your estimate of what others will do when
knocking out 10 line scripts in a hurry,
or what's in your current p5 modules?
> But that's beside the point. The two factors
> that nix this idea IMHO are that:
>
> * Putting a non-parameter in the parameter list
> is Just Plain Wrong
Right. I've always thought that too.
> * Using a single character to denote the use of
> an upscope topic is insufficiently
> obvious (regardless of which character
> is used for the purpose)
Right again. And again, I've always thought
that too.
As I said in my original email on this topic:
Afaik, the syntax for invocant naming is:
method f ($self : $a, $b) { ... }
But whatever it is, I think one can build
on it for topic transfer / naming too in a
wide range of contexts.
I didn't like the invocant syntax but didn't
want to tackle the problems with it that you
so rightly list above. My point was always
just that what's good for one very common
implicit arg (invocant) seems to me likely
to be good for what could so easily become
the other-not-quite-so-but-still-somewhat
common implicit arg (it).
But I'll assume the horse is dead, and move
on to the horses sibling, which hopefully
might live on:
Can currying include the given topic? Can
I do something like:
$foo = &bar.assuming( _ => 0)
or whatever the latest syntax is?
And what about a topic placeholder:
{ print $^_ }
such that $^_ is effectively converted to
an 'is given($^_)'.
?
--
ralph
