Stuart Cook skribis 2005-10-10 22:58 (+1100): > > @args = (a => 1, get_overrides()); > > foo([EMAIL PROTECTED]); > Not if you want that a=>1 to be a named argument. > Under the proposal, the only ways to pass a named argument are: > 1) By using a literal pair in the syntactic top-level of the arg list > 2) By splatting a pair, hash, or arg-list-object
I find this counterintuitive, and also want arrays to be included in option 2. It is consistent with the idea that * expands its RHS and evaluate it as if it was written literally. I'd like @_ or @?ARGS or something like that to be a *-able array that will be guaranteed to be compatible with the current sub's signature. Juerd -- http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
