--- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> On Monday, June 16, 2003, at 11:49 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > --- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Or, if we have "output rules" just like we have "input rules",
> could
> >> something quite complex be expressed simply as:
> >>
> >>     "You have <$x as MoneyFormat>"
> >>
> >> having previously defined your MoneyFormat "formatting rule" in
> some
> >> other location?
> >
> > "You have <MoneyFormat($x)>", no?
> 
> Yeah.  Though I'd actually hope both forms were acceptable,
> personally. 
>   I really like the visual karma of the first, representing a "type
> or 
> format conversion", more than the second, representing the "creation
> of 
> a formatted object" -- though in practice the two notions are of
> course 
> identical.  :-)
> 

Boggle.

I was thinking that the C<as> keyword was reserved for type
transformation, while <Rule($argument)> was already well-defined for
passing arguments to rules.

I'd much rather call a sub than create a temp object and then call a
method.

=Austin

Reply via email to