At 09:21 AM 8/17/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> $cgi->param($var, @val); # traditional
> $cgi->param($var) = @val; # lvalue, but same thing
>
>The second one, then, just makes it more obvious what's going on. But it
>shouldn't change the behavior of the sub. In fact, these two should
>*both* be valid options for setting $var. Then the programmer can choose
>their preferred style.
OK, this is where we differ. I see no reason why those two should
necessarily be the same. Why couldn't the first be a normal function
(returning an rvalue) rather than an assignment?
Or, more concretely, given:
$tree->path('L','R','R');
which is the "correct" interpretation?
1) return the subtree rooted on the right child of the right child of the
left child of root; or
2) set the right child of the left child of root to the scalar value 'R'
To me, it's "clear" that the first version is properly written as:
$tree->path('L','R','R');
and the second as:
$tree->path('L','R')='R';
I don't mind if a programmer would choose to support $p->foo(@args,$val);
over $p->foo(@args)=$val; I don't even mind if a programmer chose to
support both. But the programmer should have the choice of making them
mean different things, if that's what the problem domain calls for.
>-Nate
