Damian Conway:
# Brent Dax wrote:
#
# > method x ($me: $req, ?$opt, +$namedop, *%named, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) { ... }
# >
# > Yikes. And I thought we were trying to get *away* from
# line noise?
# > :^)
# >
# > Seriously, can't we use something rather prettier, like this?
# >
# > method x($me: $req, $opt is optional, $namedop is
# named, *%named,
# > [EMAIL PROTECTED]) { ... }
#
# It's quite possible that the following equivalences might hold:
#
# ?$x same as $x is optional
# +%y same as %y is named
#
# So that you could choose.
Sweet.
# > I can deal with one really funny character in a signature,
# but three
# > is a bit much.
#
# The problem is that if you have multiple optional or named
# parameters, things
# start getting uncomfortably prolix, and default values end up
# a long way from
# their owners:
#
# multi substr(Str $str, $from is optional = $CALLER::_,
# $len is optional =
# Inf, $new is optional) {...}
Almost makes you wish for those backwards declarations from C that
computer scientists always gripe about, eh? :^) Well, what about this?
multi substr(Str $str, $from = $CALLER::_ is optional, $len =
Inf is optional, $new is optional)
It's unambiguous, since $CALLER::_ and Inf have both been declared
already, so the traits can only refer to the
in-the-process-of-declaration variables. (Right?)
--Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
@roles=map {"Parrot $_"} qw(embedding regexen Configure)
>How do you "test" this 'God' to "prove" it is who it says it is?
"If you're God, you know exactly what it would take to convince me. Do
that."
--Marc Fleury on alt.atheism
