> On 15/05/05 22:48 +0100, Matthew Walton wrote: > I don't think that is what Rob is saying at all.
It wasn't aimed entirely at Rob. I have a bad habit on mailing lists of vaguely replying to the entire thread without remembering who said what and being too lazy to check. > My read: > > .method($foo); > > always means: > > $_.method($foo); > > and > > $self.method($foo); > > always means > > $?SELF.method($foo); > > The former is consistent with the rest of Perl 6, and the latter is > consistent with most of Perl 5 OO code in the wild. > > My only stance is that, given there is no clearly sexy solution, at > least I can take `$self` home to meet my Mom. Perhaps. However, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of $self being automatically assigned, because so far Perl 6 seems to have managed to avoid automatically providing anything in what I've been thinking of as the 'normal' or 'user' namespace. $?SELF looks 'special'. Admittedly it might be nicer if it was $?self, because it still looks 'special'. It's the same kind of thing that makes me wonder why $a and $b in sort was ever considered a good idea. But then perhaps I'm just odd... choosing a name for the invocant yourself if you don't want $?SELF or $_ to be it (although they will be anyway of course) seems to me to be the height of programming sexiness. I like being able to name things myself. The ./method() thing proposed in another thread is pretty cool too, by the way, and largely renders this thread moot. So perhaps I should have replied to that...
