Larry:
> > sub bar(; $foo = <topicmumble>) {...}
Damian:
> topic [would be] C<undef>.
I assumed <topicmumble> implied an 'is given'.
I don't see why it couldn't.
Damian:
> Hmmmmm. Given that the topic is in some sense
> a property of the lexical scope of the subroutine
> body, this might be a possibility:
>
> sub bar($foo is MY.topic) is given($whatever) {...}
Isn't this confusing dynamic and lexical scopes?
Perhaps:
sub bar (;$foo = YOUR.topic) { ... }
sub bar (;$foo = CALLERS.topic) { ... }
> > sub bar(*@args = $<mumble>) {...} # default to [$_]
> >
> > What <mumble> might be is an interesting, er, topic.
>
Damian:
> I would argue it ought to be just $_
You seem to be saying one could write:
sub bar (;$foo = $_) { ... }
Btw, can one write any/all of these and
have DWIMery:
sub bar (;$_) { ... }
bar ( _ => 1 );
sub bar (;$_ = $_) { ... }
As other's have suggested, a mumble of
$CALLERS::_ makes sense:
sub bar (;$foo = $CALLERS::_) { ... }
but I can see the point of a different
syntax dedicated to just the upscope topic
to avoid encouraging wider use of $CALLERS.
Hmmm.
--
ralph
