On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 12:42, Larry Wall wrote: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:45:45AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote: > : On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:17:19PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote: > : > Certainly a subroutine cannot determine > : > what context it was called in until it's actually called, unless we > : > venture into return-value MMD, which has problems resolving against > : > parameter MMD. > : > : Ugh. Pugs currently does return-value based MMD, and it has indeed > : the core reason behind my recently-reported dilemma on MMD tiebreaking. > : If we lose retval-MMD, many sensible cases can then be resolved without > : the need of "is default". > > Though not all.
Is there any reason at all that 6.0 should have return MMD? I mean, it's way-the-heck cool and all, but it became a "thing" when Parrot produced this capability as a by-product of the way MMD was implemented in conjunction with return continuations.... that doesn't mean we HAVE to use it. My gut feeling is that there are many places where Perl 6 has not had a chance to get felt out (or is that up?) by the community, and we're walking out on a dangerous limb by implementing features on top of some of those questionable areas. Sometime after we've all gotten a sense of what MMD means for Perl and how that differs from what MMD means to other popular languages, perhaps then we should explore what return-MMD could do for our lives. Just a thought. -- â 781-324-3772 â [EMAIL PROTECTED] â http://www.ajs.com/~ajs
