> What I meant to say was more along the lines of "if this could be done as a > macro, does it need to be a pragma, or could it be part of a standard macro > package?" > > And, secondly, "if this *is* part of a standard macro package, wouldn't it > be cool to let it shove arbitrary code around rather than just doing > invocant access syntax?" Sure. *If* the hypothetical macro package comes to be, this and many other proposals could be subsumed by it. But that's a mighty big "if" :-) Damian
- RE: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with self() built... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with self() ... John Siracusa
- RE: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with self() ... Myers, Dirk
- Re: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with self() ... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with self() ... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with sel... John Siracusa
- Re: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with sel... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with self() ... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with sel... John Siracusa
- Re: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with sel... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with... Randal L. Schwartz