Abhijit Mahabal skribis 2005-05-15 9:10 (-0500):
> $_ is the topic; the "only" problem is that we have two topics here: an
> immediate and a "main" topic. What if a method call binds the invocant to
> *both* $_ and the "bigger topic" $__?
> (...)
> I like this because things still look a little like a topic. This is not
> better than $o/$O, except that $__ looks more like $_ (but maybe it looks
> too much like $_, and that alone could invalidate this proposal).
I do think $__ looks too much like $_. A bit better would be to not have
a "bigger" topic, but a "higher" topic, $-, but the problem with seeing
the invocant as a topic on another level, is that
inconsistency/asymmetry would be introduced between
method {
# topic is object
given 5 {
# topic is 5
# "bigger" topic is object, we access it as $__
}
}
and
given $object {
# topic is object
given 5 {
# topic is 5
# $object is neither $_ nor $__
}
}
For this reason, I think an alias for $?SELF should not visually
resemble $_.
I don't think an alias for $?SELF is needed, because the only thing you
usually do with it, is call to call a method. In the rare occasion that
you want to pass it around, $?SELF or explicitly signatured $self
suffices (and is the clearest way to write it IMO).
You didn't say what you think about ./method; What is your opinion?
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
