I don't know much programming you do in other languages, but honestly, it's a
little bit uh, disappointing that Perl 5 can't unpack @_ into variables
automatically after 25 years.
What is it laying the groundwork for? Having a first class mop/object system
is the most immediately obvious extension. Whether you think mop/method
signatures are Good Things or not I couldn't say, but I think it's long overdue
for both.
So I say, more like this please.
Mark
On Friday, February 21, 2014 10:44 AM, B. Estrade <[email protected]> wrote:
I am just wondering, what's it a start for? I don't get all upset about
language features because this is all optional anyway, but I am curious about
what groundwork this is laying.
Brett
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Mark Allen <[email protected]> wrote:
I think it's a pretty great 1st start. And you *can* have a slurpy arg in the
final position. Plus everything's still in @_ if you want to be traditional or
modify stuff using topic variables.
>
>
>
>On Friday, February 21, 2014 9:05 AM, B. Estrade <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>So I guess with the signatures, the answer is "it depends" since it'll work
>with signatures as one might expect (i.e., the flattened array would have to
>have each element correspond to a sig parameter) or the sig parameter may very
>well be data type passed by reference.
>
>
>I read up on the signature thing, and I doubt I'll find it useful for
>anything. It's also experimental, so requires an explicit feature 'use' and
>can be taken out at any time.
>
>
>http://search.cpan.org/~tonyc/perl-5.19.9/pod/perlsub.pod#Signatures
>
>
>
>It seems a squishy and a little general, maybe it'd be better if one could
>specific the Perl data type (scalar, hashref, arrayref, etc) via the signature
>definition.
>
>
>Brett
>
>
>
>On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Uri Guttman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>On 02/21/2014 08:13 AM, B. Estrade wrote:
>>
>>On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Mark Allen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>When subroutine signatures are released in 5.20, you'll be able to do
>>>>
>>>>sub foo ($self, $foo, $bar, $baz) {
>>>> $foo ||= 'default';
>>>> $baz //= 0;
>>>>
>>>> ...;
>>>>}
>>>>
>>>>Yay!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>How will this behave if you call the method with foo(@a,@b,@c,@d) versus
>>>foo(\@a,\@b,\@c,\@d) ? Does list flattening still occur in this case
>>>necessitating the use array references if you want to pass one array per
>>>parameter?
>>>
>>>
>>
sub calls always flatten into @_. the only way to pass individual arrays is by
reference. prototypes (not recommended in most cases) do allow arrays to be
parsed as single args but they are actually passed as references.
>>
>>
>>uri
>>
>>
>>--
>>Uri Guttman - The Perl Hunter
>>The Best Perl Jobs, The Best Perl Hackers
>>http://PerlHunter.com
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Houston mailing list
>>[email protected]
>>http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/houston
>>Website: http://houston.pm.org/
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Houston mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/houston
>Website: http://houston.pm.org/
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Houston mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/houston
>Website: http://houston.pm.org/
>
_______________________________________________
Houston mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/houston
Website: http://houston.pm.org/_______________________________________________
Houston mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/houston
Website: http://houston.pm.org/
