Several areas of the docs then need to correct that. No matter what you
decide, a user should be able to take the tricky words in an error message
and usefully find them in the docs.
--
brian d foy
http://www.pair.com/~comdog/
Several areas of the docs then need to correct that. No matter what you
decide, a user should be able to take the tricky words in an error message
and usefully find them in the docs.
--
brian d foy
http://www.pair.com/~comdog/
Only *@foo and *%foo are slurpy, as in "slurping up the rest of the arguments.
But the term "variadic" refers to all optional arguments including named ones,
so it would be incorrect to call those "slurpy", because they don't. It's like
the difference between * and ? in regex.
Larry
On Fri, 1
Only *@foo and *%foo are slurpy, as in "slurping up the rest of the arguments.
But the term "variadic" refers to all optional arguments including named ones,
so it would be incorrect to call those "slurpy", because they don't. It's like
the difference between * and ? in regex.
Larry
On Fri, 1
This could've been a LHF, except for these tests:
https://github.com/perl6/roast/blob/4bfd6d2374cb4ea1b8fa057a5f294b988e4dec44/S32-exceptions/misc.t#L180-L185
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But yes, I think it should say “slurpy” everywhere.
On 2017-08-18 07:10:52, comdog wrote:
> Consider this program which I don't
# New Ticket Created by "brian d foy"
# Please include the string: [perl #131922]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=131922 >
Consider this program which I don't expect to work (and it doesn't compile):
sub sh
