On 10/20/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another thing I didn't mention is that that binds both the variable
> and its class. But the $ variable is of course optional after the
> type, so you could just write that
>
> sub sametype (¢T, ¢T) {...}
>
> if you don't actually care about $x and $y. Basically, ¢T captures
> the type of the associated scalar in any lvalue or declarative context,
> whether or not hte scalar itself is captured.
So it's a type position thing if it can be. Good. (I wonder if,
since it's allowed in term position, we will come up with ambiguities)
How about this:
sub foo(c|T $x) {
my sub util (c|T $in) {...}
util($x)
}
Is that c|T in util() a new, free type variable, or am I asserting
that the type of util()'s argument must be the same type as $x?
Luke
