Author: lwall Date: 2010-06-19 20:10:57 +0200 (Sat, 19 Jun 2010) New Revision: 31377
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S10-packages.pod Log: [S10] fix thinkos and bad writing Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S10-packages.pod =================================================================== --- docs/Perl6/Spec/S10-packages.pod 2010-06-19 18:04:32 UTC (rev 31376) +++ docs/Perl6/Spec/S10-packages.pod 2010-06-19 18:10:57 UTC (rev 31377) @@ -227,18 +227,19 @@ you can simply call a newly-minted subroutine explicitly via the current package: - OUR::"$somename"(); + OUR::($somename)(); -This bypasses the lexical namespaces entirely. Alternately, we can set up a -mechanism whereby, if you import or define a C<CANDO> into a given lexical -scope, all calls from within that scope register a failover that adds the -current package to the list of places to look for subroutines (or, obviously, -call the C<CANDO> as a last resort after that). This is no performance -impact on existing lexically scoped definitions, including those from C<CORE>. -It does require that failures to find a function name be reported at run-time -rather than compile time. The package's routine names are also shadowed by -all names defined in your outer lexical scopes, including C<CORE>. If this -is a problem, use the direct C<OUR> call above. +This bypasses the lexical namespaces entirely. Alternately, we can set +up a mechanism whereby, if you import or define a C<CANDO> into a given +lexical scope, all calls from within that scope register a failover that +adds the current package to the list of places to look for subroutines (or, +obviously, call the C<CANDO> as a last resort after that). There is no +performance impact on existing lexically scoped definitions, including those +from C<CORE>. This approach does require that failure to find a function name +cannot be reported at compile time, but must be delayed till run time instead. +Another potential disadvantage is that the package's symbols are also shadowed +by all symbols defined in your outer lexical scopes, including C<CORE>. +If this is a problem, use the direct C<OUR> call above. Another way to look at it is that a lexical C<CANDO> adds itself to the end of the function dispatcher's search, but sets up the current
