On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 01:13:42PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> It does make me think, though... Would it make sense to have an
> accessor operator? For example, in Perl5 I would do this:
>
> sub foo {
> my $self = shift;
> my $old = $self->{foo};
> # So $obj->foo(undef) will work
> if (@_) {
> $self->{foo} = shift @_;
> }
> return $old;
> }
>
> In Perl6 with the unary ., that becomes:
>
> sub .foo (*@args) {
> my $old = $.{foo};
> # So $obj.foo(undef) will work
> $.{foo} = shift @args if @args;
> return $old;
> }
Actually, I think it becomes:
sub foo is method {
my $old = .foo;
.foo = shift if @_;
return $old;
}
But, I could be wrong. Any Damians care to enlighten? :-)
> So, since this is likely to be fairly common, could we perhaps have
> a shortcut?
I'm not so sure that a) we need short-cut and b) that one doesn't
already fall out of existing er, proposed language features.
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
