On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 01:39:44PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote:
> : So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on
> : top?).
>
> It means that all the time, but only when unambiguous. If you say
If .method always means $_.method ($_ being the topic) then I don't see how
it is ever ambiguous. Unless I missed where nested loops would also
disallow .method because people might not be able to keep track of the
topic.
> use dot;
>
> it'll always be construed as unambigous. You could go so far as to
> say
>
> method foo($x) {
> my $y = .bar; # $_ is self call because $_ := $?SELF
>
> given $y { use dot; # "yes I know what I'm doing"
> when 1 { .abc } # calls $y.abc
> when 2 { .bcd } # calls $y.bcd
> }
>
> .baz; # back to self.baz
> }
Why must anything special be done in the given block to allow .method if
it is always $_.method? Since I know $y is the topic in this block I know
to expect $y.abc to be called. There is no ambiguity. An error here
would just be confusing.
Now, for those who want .abc to call $?SELF.abc within the given block
then I think it would be clearer if they spelled out that intention with
something like
given $y { use dot '$?SELF'; # or just 'use dot' with suitable default
when 1 { .abc } # calls $?SELF.abc
}
--
Rick Delaney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
