> > (Or, was it already intended that the implementation of 'use
> > invocant' might be some sort of compile-time macro?)
> No. I think a macro facility for Perl should be more general than just
> whacking some code in at the start of every subroutine.
Yes. I didn't phrase my comments well. Sorry.
> The use invocant was proposed as a way to maintain backwards compatibility
> and yet give everyone the invocant access syntax he or she personally
favours.
Sure, but isn't this essentially a macro? (If it *isn't*, then I'm missing
something... which could very well be the case).
What I meant to say was more along the lines of "if this could be done as a
macro, does it need to be a pragma, or could it be part of a standard macro
package?"
And, secondly, "if this *is* part of a standard macro package, wouldn't it
be cool to let it shove arbitrary code around rather than just doing
invocant access syntax?"
Dirk
