On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 03:16:50PM +0200, "TSa (Thomas Sandla�)" wrote:
> sub equitype ( ::a $x, a $y) { ... }
That's not a bad idea at all. I rather like it. I'd just still like an
explicit type-unifying parens around ::a, just so people won't say
sub foo (::Int $x) { ... }
and accidentally rebind Int.
> which is the same behaviour as for the value of $x which can be used
> immediately for subsequent parameter bindings. Hmm, how do coderefs behave
> in that respect?
>
> sub codeparam ( &foo, ?$val = foo ) {...}
>
> Does this invoke a &bar argument once for the call codeparam( &bar )
> and capture the result in $codeparam::val while the call
> codeparam( &bar, 42 ) stores 42 without invoking &bar through
> &codeparam::foo?
Yes.
> And in which exact environment does a call to &bar take place when
> needed to bind $val? Purely ::CALLER? Signature as bound so far?
> ::OUTER of the use'er of the package which contains &codeparam? Or the
> ::OUTER of the 'real' package file?
The lexical scope of the sub, with the signature bound so far.
Thanks,
/Autrijus/
pgpM1FYbFZk1F.pgp
Description: PGP signature
