On 8/26/06, Audrey Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mostly, it's that func('&x' => 1) requires a bit too much typing, and also
makes it hard for func() to change its signature later on to accept things
other than Code.
Allow me to make an immodest proposal. Have named parameter passing
look like this:
':' . param name (including sigil) . ( '(' . value . ' )' x (0|1)).
So func('&x' => 1) would become func(:&x(1)). The colon would
consistently have the effect of "preventing evaluation" of the key (as
it currently does by having :foo(1) not call foo()).
The call foo(:$bar($baz)) would assign the value of the variable $baz
to the named parameter '$bar" and would have nothing to do with the
caller's $bar variable, although it could default to that so that
foo(:$bar) would still have its current semantics.
Perhaps the sigil could be optional when there is only one parameter
matching the rest of the name, or else the callee's signature would be
able to specify that the sigil is optional.
I would then make key => value always be a Pair value. For module
writers to support perl5 calling semantics, I'd prefer a mechanism for
asking for that explicitly in the signature rather than jumping
through hoops to support it by default. Perhaps there could be a rule
that, in the absence of a slurpy hash declaration, any trailing Pairs
are scanned for matches to named parameters?
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
