Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should be functions

[John Porter]

Damian Conway wrote:
>    > I think it would be a good thing for user prototypes to be able to
>    > handle this case and I wholeheartedly support the RFC; but it opens
>    > a can of worms that should be addressed. Perhaps in another RFC. Do
>    > any other (Damian) RFCs on (Damian) prototyping impact (Damian)
>    > this area?
> 
> I'll need to think about that issue. Can anyone think of an optional left
> argument that *isn't* really an indirect object?

Well, as I mentioned in another recent parallel thread, if C<for> is to
be properly functionalized, provision must be made in the prototype for
its optional iterator:

        for ( @a ) {
        for $i ( @b ) { 

And we could lose the parens, too.

        sub for($?@&); # shweet.

-- 
John Porter

        We're building the house of the future together.