--- 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
