[Quoting Sam Vilain, on June 27 2005, 11:35, in Re: Getopt::Long wis]
Johan Vromans wrote:
You mean, you are going to pass things like STDOUT, STDERR, ENV and so
on, to every function that may use them? [1]
Global things are intended to be global, I'd say.
This is why code using CGI.pm
Title: RE: Getopt::Long wishes (was: RFC: Getopt::Modern)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Monday, June 27, 2005 9:46 AM
Anyway, the next version of Getopt::Long will have the ability to use
an arbitrary array instead of ARGV.
Now, do you want this to be yet another if the first argument is an
[Quoting Orton, Yves, on June 27 2005, 10:17, in RE: Getopt::Long wis]
sub GetOptions {
GetOptionsArray([EMAIL PROTECTED],@_);
}
GetOptionsFromArray?
-- Johan
Orton, Yves wrote:
Imo it would better to expose a different subroutine name for this.
sub GetOptions {
GetOptionsArray([EMAIL PROTECTED],@_);
}
Is that ruled out for some reason?
If you consider the signature a part of the subroutine name, then
simply making it take an arrayref as the first
[Quoting Sam Vilain, on June 27 2005, 22:56, in Re: Getopt::Long wis]
If passing an array ref first doesn't interfere with the calling
convention, then imho you don't need to change the function name.
Interfere? No, but elegant?
Currently, GetOptions allows an array ref as the first argument
* Orton, Yves [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-27 11:25]:
Imo it would better to expose a different subroutine name for this.
Ie:
sub GetOptions {
GetOptionsArray([EMAIL PROTECTED],@_);
}
Sounds like a very good idea to me.
* Johan Vromans [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-27 11:55]:
# The following was supposedly scribed by
# Johan Vromans
# on Monday 27 June 2005 02:46 am:
sub GetOptions {
GetOptionsArray([EMAIL PROTECTED],@_);
}
GetOptionsFromArray?
That sounds like a great idea.
Any chance of it involving an object (and therefore multi-pass support?)
--Eric
--
