Jonathan Lang wrote:
What got me thinking about this was that I couldn't find decent
documentation about Capture literals in the synopses.
Are Capture literals going to replace or unify the "assuming"/"currying"
behaviors?
=Austin
: arguments; the first non-pair is captured as the invocant if it is
: followed by a colon, but as a positional argument otherwise; all other
: non-pairs are captured as positional arguments.
Capture literals ignore their context like [...] does.
What got me thinking about this was that I
argument otherwise; all other
: non-pairs are captured as positional arguments.
Capture literals ignore their context like [...] does.
: So:
:
: $x = \$a; # $$x eqv $a
: $x = \:foo;# %$x eqv { foo => 1 }
: $x = \($a,); # @$x eqv ( $a ); is the comma neccessary, or are the
: () eno
How would I construct a capture literal that has both an invocant and
at least one positional argument? How do I distinguish this from a
capture literal that has no invocant and at least two positional
arguments?
Gut instinct: if the first parameter in a list is delimited from the
rest using a c
