From: "Robert Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 17 Jun 2002, at 22:10, Jenda Krynicky wrote: > > > > Defining interfaces - Not really much of a problem in my view. > > > Again the document compares perl to CL which is certainly better > > > in this regard, but this says more about how good CL is at this, > > > perl isn't much worse than anything else. > > > > Perl is not a strictly typed language. Neither the subroutines are > > typed. This is both a design feature, not a bug. > > What the article talks about isn't about the strictness of typing but > that you can't use a hash as a way of passing parameter (unless you > use a reference to it).
But of course you can. A lot of modules do just that. Take CGI.pm for example. It's just that the function has to specifically support it. The whole issue is that functions in Perl simply have no type (OK, they can have a prototype, but that's a little different beast). There are no real parameters specified for a function. A function simply accepts a list ... what is it going to do with it is completely its own business. Therefore the compiler cannot support named parameters on its own, it doesn't have any list of names to start with. Which is both good and bad. Jenda =========== [EMAIL PROTECTED] == http://Jenda.Krynicky.cz ========== There is a reason for living. There must be. I've seen it somewhere. It's just that in the mess on my table ... and in my brain I can't find it. --- me _______________________________________________ ActivePerl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
