On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:03:45PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote: > On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 07:57:01PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote: > > > ::m2; # calls global subroutine main::m2 > > > main::m2; # calls global subroutine main::m2 > > > > This is looking more and more horrible Glenn. > I think we need to back off of unmarked subroutines becoming a method > call.
Yeah. > I like the following, assumed to be within method m1: > > ..m2(); # call m2 the same way m1 was called, instance or class This has already been semi-rejected. I agree with the reasoning. Not that it wouldn't be nice to have a way to code the concept, just that the ".." symbology isn't right for the job. > $_.m2(); # same thing? Does the class become the topic in a static method? If ..m2() were the same as $self.m2(), $_.m2() would only be the same until you entered the scope of another topicalizer. > m2() # call subroutine m2 with no arguments, implied or otherwise Agreed. Allison
