Re: +$arg changed to :$arg

HaloO, Juerd wrote: This aside, you could of course just double the colon. Or use a semicolon. Semicolon would give me the mnemonic of 'end of statement' seperating the dispatched part from the checked part of the signature. Or it reminds one of the array and hash slicing. Should we call dispa

Re: +$arg changed to :$arg

On 10/27/05, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > HaloO, > > Larry Wall wrote: > > > : Yes, and dispatch as a runtime keyed access into a code multitude. > > : The covariant part of the method's sig! The code equivalent to keyed > > : data access into hashes. > > > > Um, yeah. Won't play in Peoria, th

Re: +$arg changed to :$arg

HaloO, Larry Wall wrote: : Yes, and dispatch as a runtime keyed access into a code multitude. : The covariant part of the method's sig! The code equivalent to keyed : data access into hashes. Um, yeah. Won't play in Peoria, though. Where or what is Peoria? What I mean with the covariant pa

Re: +$arg changed to :$arg

On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 07:06:15PM +0200, TSa wrote: : HaloO, : : Larry Wall wrote: : >On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 04:59:04PM +0200, Juerd wrote: : >: Larry Wall skribis 2005-10-26 7:31 (-0700): : >: > One slightly serious ramification of the : switch is that the space : >: > is required after the co

Re: +$arg changed to :$arg

HaloO, Larry Wall wrote: On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 04:59:04PM +0200, Juerd wrote: : Larry Wall skribis 2005-10-26 7:31 (-0700): : > One slightly serious ramification of the : switch is that the space : > is required after the colon indicating a null invocant. What is an invocantless method othe

Re: +$arg changed to :$arg

Larry Wall skribis 2005-10-26 8:29 (-0700): > I think a . would be too lightweight visually within the signature. > Plus . is a postfix prefix syntactically, not a delimiter. If weight is the issue, @#@ should do ;) This aside, you could of course just double the colon. Or use a semicolon. I ju

Re: +$arg changed to :$arg

On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 04:59:04PM +0200, Juerd wrote: : Larry Wall skribis 2005-10-26 7:31 (-0700): : > One slightly serious ramification of the : switch is that the space : > is required after the colon indicating a null invocant. : > method doit (: $a, $b, $c) : : Or, we could separate it

Re: +$arg changed to :$arg

Larry Wall skribis 2005-10-26 7:31 (-0700): > One slightly serious ramification of the : switch is that the space > is required after the colon indicating a null invocant. > method doit (: $a, $b, $c) Or, we could separate it with a . instead of a :, perhaps? This is already more or less ver

Re: +$arg changed to :$arg

On 10/26/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A mandatory named parameter is now marked +:$nonoptionaloption. Woo! :) -John

Re: +$arg changed to :$arg

It also means you could write a prototype that looks like :(!, !, !, ?, ?) We don't need no stinkin' "_". There's more than one way to not care. (I guess that means that in addition to supporting interesting values of undef, we also support interesting values of not caring...) But does that

Re: +$arg changed to :$arg

On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 04:02:06PM +0200, Juerd wrote: : Larry Wall skribis 2005-10-26 6:44 (-0700): : > I should point out that one of the major changes in the most recent : > S6 is that named arguments are now marked by : rather than +, with : > :foo($bar) being the way to declare parameter $bar

Re: +$arg changed to :$arg

On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 10:06:25AM -0400, Matt Fowles wrote: : Larry~ : : On 10/26/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: : > So we'd get: : > : > :@array[42] 42 => @array[1] : : Do you mean C< :@array[42] 42 => @array[42] >? Yes. I was changing it because 42 : 1 :: foo : a, but I flubbe

Re: +$arg changed to :$arg

Larry~ On 10/26/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So we'd get: > > :@array[42] 42 => @array[1] Do you mean C< :@array[42] 42 => @array[42] >? > The last three forms are more arguable than the first three, especially > since they probably aren't valid formal parameters. We kind of

Re: +$arg changed to :$arg

Larry Wall skribis 2005-10-26 6:44 (-0700): > I should point out that one of the major changes in the most recent > S6 is that named arguments are now marked by : rather than +, with > :foo($bar) being the way to declare parameter $bar but give it the > external name of "foo". A + is now reserved

+$arg changed to :$arg

I should point out that one of the major changes in the most recent S6 is that named arguments are now marked by : rather than +, with :foo($bar) being the way to declare parameter $bar but give it the external name of "foo". A + is now reserved to mark mandatory parameters, though it's redundant