> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:11:52 -0800 (PST)
> From: Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> --- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...
>
> > This might work now, presuming
> >
> > sub foo (;$_ = $=)
> >
> > (or whatever) is really a binding, and not an assignment. (That's
> > another reason why //= is *wrong*--it implies assignment.)
>
> Umm, that's what it was supposed to do.
>
> IOW: sub($param //= $=)
>
> means "if you don't get one, grab the value of $=."
More like "if you don't get one, bind to $="
Copying stuff should always be explicit, as it can take awhile. I'm
wondering how //= implies assignment while = doesn't. But I tend to
like = better anyway. And using := :
sub foo ($param := $=) {...}
Just feels wrong. I guess there was no point to what I just wrote...
> As opposed to sub($param ://= $=)
>
> which would be a horrible-looking way of getting something by
> reference.
Using an operator that doesn't exist.
> Which is also why I asked about value/reference semantics.
>
> Or is ";" supposed to be the "here be reference-args" delimiter? (I
> thought it meant "here be named parameters"...)
Neither. It means "here be optional parameters." Just like Perl 5.
Luke
