On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 12:20:57PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> : I'm not sure how this selection mechanism is meant to be used.
>
> The skip is meant to be applied after filtration. Don't filter out
> things you want to see later, in other words.
Okay, caller done as r4555. Without :label for now, because we don't
have that yet.
> : - AES does not enumerate the complete member set. We can use that now :)
>
> Um. That's something I wouldn't mind delegating to whoever is slogging
> it out on the ground.
That's fine for caller, but half the examples for want imply things that
aren't available in Pugs' exisitng want yet (count, rw), and I think they
might not be straightforward to add. If there are other things come to
mind they'll probably be easier to add all at once.
[.sub -> .subname ; .sub returns coderef]
> That's the direction we're going with &?SUB and $?SUBNAME, so I don't
> see why it couldn't apply here too.
Done.
> It would be nice if the interfaces were similar where they try to do
> similar things.
>
> But then, it might be nice to copy over the :nth($n) interface from
> pattern matching too, somehow or other. Right now our selectors don't
> have a way to generalize that. You almost want to be able to say
> something like caller(3rd(Sub)), which causes ~~ to match Sub, but
> only on the third thing that could be construed as a Sub, presuming
> ~~ is treating the other argument as some kind of iterator. But up
> till now we've been treating such iterators as external to ~~, with
> the args matched one at a time. One could imagine seeing things like:
>
> given =$IN {
> when 1st(/foo/) {...}
> when 2nd(/bar/) {...}
> when 3rd(/baz/) {...}
> }
>
> but the semantics of such a construct are more than somewhat problematic.
Is caller so time-critical that saying 3rd(caller(Sub)) is too bad?
FWIW, this is how I interpreted caller(Sub, :skip<2>), as "the third
sub". And unless I'm wrong, caller(Block, :skip<2>, :label<moose>) would
mean, "once you get to the third Block, look on for one labeled "moose".
So we don't have a way to skip three methods and then look for a labeled
block, but if the user really wants that, let them grovel over a
complete call chain themselves.
--
Gaal Yahas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://gaal.livejournal.com/
