Hi,
while fixing bugs for the imminent Pugs 6.2.10 release, we ran into
several issues with magical pairs (pairs which unexpectedly participate
in named binding) again. Based on Luke's Demagicalizing pairs thread
[1], #perl6 refined the exact semantics [2].
The proposed changes are:
* (key =
IB == Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IB * (key = $value) (with the parens) is always a positionally passed
IB Pair object. key = $value (without the parens) is a named
IB parameter:
IB sub foo ($a) {...}
IB * Unary * makes a normal pair variable participate in
Hi,
Uri Guttman wrote:
IB == Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IB * (key = $value) (with the parens) is always a positionally
passed
IB Pair object. key = $value (without the parens) is a named
IB parameter:
IB sub foo ($a) {...}
IB * Unary * makes a
On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 20:22:59 +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
Opinions?
Yes!
--
() Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xEBD27418 perl hacker
/\ kung foo master: *shu*rik*en*sh*u*rik*en*s*hur*i*ke*n*: neeyah
pgpPtAVtx26AP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 10/9/05, Uri Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IB == Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IB sub foo ($a) {...}
works for me. but what about lists and arrays?
my @z = ( 'a', 1 ) ;
foo( @z ) # $a = [ 'a', 1 ] ??
Yep.
my @z = ( a = 1 ) ;
LP == Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LP On 10/9/05, Uri Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IB == Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IB sub foo ($a) {...}
works for me. but what about lists and arrays?
my @z = ( 'a', 1 ) ;
foo( @z ) # $a = [ 'a', 1 ]
The think I don't like about `foo( *$bar )` is that it's not clear
whether you're splatting a pair, or a hash, or an array, or a complete
argument-list object. This is probably fine for quick-'n'-dirty code,
but I'd like to encourage a more explicit style:
my %hash = (a='b', c='d');
foo(
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that perl6 (by
default) shouldn't refuse to run programs because of a (perceived or
real) type error. It should, of course, emit a compile-type type
*warning*, which can be silenced or made fatal at the user's
discretion.
There are a few reasons
Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
Hi,
while fixing bugs for the imminent Pugs 6.2.10 release, we ran into
several issues with magical pairs (pairs which unexpectedly participate
in named binding) again. Based on Luke's Demagicalizing pairs thread
[1], #perl6 refined the exact semantics [2].
The proposed
On 10/10/05, Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about whitespace?
foo (a = 42); # Note space
Is that the first case (subcall with named arg) or the second case (sub
with positional pair)?
Sub with positional pair, since the parens aren't call-parens (because
of the space), so
SC == Stuart Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SC The think I don't like about `foo( *$bar )` is that it's not clear
SC whether you're splatting a pair, or a hash, or an array, or a complete
SC argument-list object. This is probably fine for quick-'n'-dirty code,
SC but I'd like to
Stuart Cook wrote:
On 10/10/05, Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about whitespace?
foo (a = 42); # Note space
Is that the first case (subcall with named arg) or the second case (sub
with positional pair)?
Sub with positional pair, since the parens aren't call-parens
12 matches
Mail list logo
