On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:59:23PM +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote:
: On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 06:46:50PM +0800, Audrey Tang wrote:
: > >Does this mean a single named parameter called $x, or a default invocant
: > >and a single required positional named $x?
: >
: > "A default invocant" prolly doesn't make sense there... There's
: > nothing to "default" to. :-)
:
: What invocant is constructed in this signature then?
:
: method foo ($just_a_named_param)
:
: Is the signature for &foo really the same as that of bar?
:
: sub bar ($just_a_named_param)
Maybe methods and submethods turn
method foo ($just_a_named_param)
into
method foo ($ : $just_a_named_param)
Since we regularized invocants, there's much less need for an empty
invocant, so maybe the $ is required there if you put the :. If so, we
should probably explicitly say that there are no variables of the form
"$:", "$;", or "$,", so those will always be taken as "$ :", "$ ;", and
"$ ," respectively. At least within signatures.
In any case, prefix ':' is not an operator. In :(:$foo) the :$
starts a token, so you'd have to put space between to mean :(: $foo).
: I was sort of assuming you could tell by a signature if it was for a
: method or a sub.
I'm trying to decide if
sub ($self: $just_a_named_param)
can meaningfully put anything into $self. It seems doubtful, and it should
probably be
submethod ($self: $just_a_named_param)
So for the jet-lagged moment I think your assumption is valid. I might
jet-delag at any moment, however...
Larry
