On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 04:56:40AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Come to think of it, that seems backwards. After all, aren't:
:
: my Foo $x;
: my $x of Foo;
:
: Equivalent?
Didn't answer this part...
If --> and returns are different, than "of" probably sets the --> type
rather than the
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 04:56:40AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: On 2/24/06, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > No. One of the available TRAITS is C. So you can always
: > specify a "postfix" return type, even without a declarator:
: >
: > sub data() returns Str {...}
: >
: > The de
On 2/24/06, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. One of the available TRAITS is C. So you can always
> specify a "postfix" return type, even without a declarator:
>
> sub data() returns Str {...}
>
> The declarator is only needed if you want to "prefix" your return type
> (presuma
Joe Gottman asked:
my RETTYPE sub NAME ( PARAMS ) TRAITS {...}# lexical only
our RETTYPE sub NAME ( PARAMS ) TRAITS {...}# also package-scoped
sub NAME ( PARAMS ) TRAITS {...}# same as "our"
Note that the third possibility here does not include a return type. Doe
According to the revised Synopsis 6, named subroutines can have one of three
forms:
my RETTYPE sub NAME ( PARAMS ) TRAITS {...}# lexical only
our RETTYPE sub NAME ( PARAMS ) TRAITS {...}# also package-scoped
sub NAME ( PARAMS ) TRAITS {...}# same as "
