So what's wrong with:
sub foo($param is topic //= $= // 5) # Shorter form with $=
sub foo($param is topic //= $CALLER::_ // 5)
It doesn't really seem like we can make it much shorter. Yes, we could
convert //= into a single character, but why? People will understand
//=.
The idea of $= as CALLER::_ is good, though.
Also, since we're jamming things into the signature, how do we declare
call-by-value/call-by-reference info?
=Austin
--- Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To summarize, we're discussing 3 features:
>
> a) the ability to set the topic with a block (sub, method, etc)
> b) the ability to set a default value for a parameter
> c) the ability to break lexical scope
> 1) for $_ only
> 2) for any variable
>
> Each of these features already have syntax that allows them to be
> used
> independently:
>
> # a) set topic
> sub foo ($param is topic) { ... }
> # or it's set implicitly to the first parameter
>
> # b) default
> sub foo ($param = 5) { ... }
>
> # c) break lexical scope
> $CALLER::varname
>
> The propsals all basically boil down to bits of syntactic sugar that
> combine these three features in various ways.
>
> The fundamental question for each of the proposals is "What's the
> overall gain for the language in providing syntatic sugar for this
> particular combination of features?"
>
> Allison
