I think this ticket has been resolved by the decision that method names must be quoted (as stated in pdd19).
I propose to close ticket. kjs On Thu Oct 04 16:39:31 2007, coke wrote: > > On Sep 29, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Klaas-Jan Stol (via RT) wrote: > > > # New Ticket Created by Klaas-Jan Stol > > # Please include the string: [perl #45859] > > # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. > > # <URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=45859 > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > This proposal is about resolving method names: bare words or quoted > > > > it might be that i'm not well informed on this issue, so please > > correct me > > where I go wrong. > > > > > > IMCC currently allows for method call syntax like this: > > > > foo.bar() > > foo."bar"() > > One thing to think about is that allowing double quoted strings > wrapping this allows us to have method names with spaces, unicode, > newlines... (and having single quoted strings allows us to easily > have escaped versions of same.) > > > > Both invoke the method named "bar" on the object "foo", UNLESS > > there is a > > local variable named "bar", in which case the first statement will > > invoke > > the method whose name is stored in that local variable. > > > > This is confusing, and makes reading code not easy (imagine having a > > subroutine of 50+ instructions, and debugging it) > > > > PCCMETHODs (a method on a pmc written in C) is, IIRC, invoked using > > a bare > > word methodname like so: > > > > foo.bar() > > > > So, what is called here? Is bar a method, a PCCMETHOD (but I guess > > that does > > not matter), or a local variable containing the name of a method? > > > > > > > > In order to prevent confusing, I propose that methodnames are > > always written > > between quotes. This should also be true for PCCMETHODs. > > Only then is it always clear when calling a method whose name is > > stored in a > > local variable, or if it's actually the name of the method that was > > written. > > > > I think the method "new" on a class is a PCCMETHOD, right? > > This would mean that you would create a new object instance like so: > > > > .local pmc b > > b = Foo.new() > > > > Having to write > > > > b = Foo.'new'() might seem inconvenient, but I think it's a matter of > > getting used to, and it is more consistent. > > > > Consistency is good. > > > > The assembly language (if you can call PIR that) should not have > > too many > > rules and exceptions. > > -- > Will "Coke" Coleda > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
