Damian Conway wrote:
>
> It's an idea that within a method call, the object reference would
> not be passed as the first argument (or maybe, not *just* as the
> first argument), but in a variable named $ME. I was pushing that
> envelope a little.
Is this RFC'ed yet? If not, I'll do it, but not u
> > It's an idea that within a method call, the object reference would
> > not be passed as the first argument (or maybe, not *just* as the
> > first argument), but in a variable named $ME. I was pushing that
> > envelope a little.
>
> Is this RFC'ed yet?
It may have been m
> "Damian" == Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Damian> Don't give alternatives. Give a "these alternatives were considered and
Damian> *rejected*" list. $ME is capitalized (like all "magic" vars), and short.
I actually don't like the literal $ME. It usurps a variable name that
has
> "John" == John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> I don't like $ME either, but my alternative is probably even more
John> blasphemous: use $self. "It usurps a variable name that has been legal for
John> customer use in prior Perls!" you re-exclaim. Not if it only appears in a
John
>From his padded room, Randal suggested:
> > "John" == John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> John> I don't like $ME either, but my alternative is probably even more
> John> blasphemous: use $self.
>
> John> But wait, it gets worse: I'd even be happy with the bar
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> I'll have an adjacent cell. I actually like that *better* than $self.
> Let's not stop there though. Perhaps we need "self" and "super" and
> "thisContext". Only half joking... this would solve a lot of the
> hacking issues. self could be a "die
On Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 09:32:50AM -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> > "John" == John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> John> I don't like $ME either, but my alternative is probably even more
> John> blasphemous: use $self. "It usurps a variable name that has been legal for
> John> c
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Errr. I would imagine that $ME contains:
>
> * a reference to the object, within an object method
>
> * the name of the class, within a class method
>
> * a reference to the *subroutine* itself, within a non-method.
Ooh, recursive a
-Original Message-
From: Damian Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
And don't forget to include my idea that $ME be scoped locally like
$AUTOLOAD, so that the "self" and "this" and "I" and "myself" camps can
have their respective cakes but the rest of us don't have to eat them:
[...]
