On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 20:23:55 +1000, Stuart Cook wrote: > Here's a suggestion: <snip> > Within argument lists, both of them are special syntactic forms for > named arguments: > > foo(a => 'b', :c<d>); # both named args <snip> > my $pair = :a<b>; > foo($pair); # not a named-arg call <snip> > ...or else find new syntax to disambiguate:
For disambiguation I think we should have symmetric functions:
foo(pairs(a => 'b', :c<d>));
my $pair = :a<b>;
foo(named($pair));
This can be implemented in a number of ways (NamedArg isa Pair,
macros, special construct).
Edge case:
foo(my $x = :foo<bah>);
bar($x);
As I see it in this example bar is getting a pair, not a named
argument.
foo() on the other hand could get either a named argument since
:foo<bah> was in it's parameters, or a pair, since (my $x =
:foo<bah>) is an expression.
If the named semantics are in the micro-lexical scope of the call to
the pair constructor, foo() gets a named. If not, it gets a pair.
In either condition, there should be a warning:
"Possible unintended use of pair instead of named argument in
:foo<bah>, call to foo() at ..."
and disambiguation can fix this:
foo(named(my $x = :foo<bah>));
foo(pair(my $x = :foo<bah>));
--
() Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0xEBD27418 perl hacker &
/\ kung foo master: /me groks YAML like the grasshopper: neeyah!!!!!!
pgpXPzyk6zF6Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
