Re: \(...)?
Hi, Larry Wall wrote: The only questions in my mind are whether Perl 5's \($a,$b) is what people expect (it's arguably counterintuitive to newbies), and whether there's some other construct that would more naturally construct a list of references. It's not just \« though, since it has to *parse* as a list of lvalues. Maybe a siglet can degenerate to that, but there are problems with that approach too. Unless someone can come up with a better proposal, \($a,$b) is the default winner on the basis of prior Perl 5 art. So...: [EMAIL PROTECTED];# Ref to array \(@array); # List of refs to @array's elements, i.e. same as map { \$_ } @array; # Weird (violating the parens are only for grouping rule), but # consistent with Perl 5. Correct? --Ingo -- Linux, the choice of a GNU | Row, row, row your bits, gently down the generation on a dual AMD | stream... Athlon!|
Re: no 6;
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 08:29:00PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: It's not valid perl 4: $ perl4 -e 'no 5; print [EMAIL PROTECTED]' syntax error in file /tmp/perl-em47tij at line 1, next 2 tokens no 5 Execution of /tmp/perl-em47tij aborted due to compilation errors. $ perl1 -e 'no 4; print Happy New Year, 1988!\n' syntax error in file /tmp/perl-eE52cHQ at line 1, next token string Execution aborted due to compilation errors. -- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern Insulting our readers is part of our business model. http://somethingpositive.net/sp07122005.shtml
Re: Regarding Roles and $?ROLE
From: Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 9/11/05, Stevan Little [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all. I have some questions about how Roles will behave in certain instances, and when/where/what $?ROLE should be bound too. 1) Given this example, where 'bar' is a method stub (no implementation) role Foo { method bar { ... } } Should the eventually implemented method still have a binding for $? ROLE? The way you're referring to $?ROLE here sounds kind of akin to asking *the* type (not class) of a particular object. That is, you're asking the compiler for the answer to a question that doesn't make any sense. I do not see $?ROLE as refering to the type of the object, I would think we should use does() for that. I see $?ROLE as being like $?SELF and $?CLASS in that it is just a pseudo-lexical which is only bound in certain situtions (inside a method defintion, inside a class definition, etc). It seems to me that $?ROLE should be bound within a Role defintion as well, and this of course means it is defined within role methods as well. However, method stubs are a grey area. The stub is defined within the Role, and so a part of the Role, but the eventual method defintion is done by the consuming class, which is not part of the Role. Honestly, my vote is for no. I think $?ROLE only really makes sense within the context of the Role, and I am not really sure I see much use for it outside of this anyway. Stevan