> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 04:25:45PM -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
> : In this case, the reliance on saying:
> :
> : if (+$x > 9) ...
> :
> : to disambiguate logical/arithmetic/string/whatever context in
> expressions is
> : going to sit at cross purposes to the +-as-required-arg usage.
> It'll be yet
> : another source of learning curve gradient to no real purpose.
> :
> : method x ($me: $req, ?$opt, +$namedopt, *%named, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) {...}
> : vs:
> : method x($me: $req, ?$opt, ~$namedopt, *%named, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) {...}
>
> Using ~ is not an improvement in that respect. Named arguments are
> not in string context.
True. I hear that backtick is available. ;-) My point, though,
was that both are about the same, visually.
I could at least see the "string" -> "has a name" association.
In this case, though, perhaps an explicit reference to the
regex-meaning, as opposed to the contex-meaning, will get the
point across.
To answer Dan's posting: I fully expect to never use any of these
sigils, myself. I'm sure there will be traits for this- nice
verbose traits. (Signatures are about as write-once as you can get...)
method x(
requires:invocant $me,
requires $requisite,
$mandatory,
$necessary,
optional $maybe,
$possible,
$potential,
$unlikely,
named $yclept,
$hight,
$aka,
named:* %named,
va_list @list)
{...}
=Austin
