That is correct. It probably should have read "...our style policies will be to _always_ use explicit invocants, if .foo ends up meaning $ in the final release (as it does now)".

(of course, I suspect Darren will keep using them anyways, but then he likes to be even more explicit than I am) :)

Personally, .foo meaning $ seems more consistent to my mind, and I'd happily standardise on implicit invocants. The only minor thing I can see would be that you will end up with a slight asymmetry question of "if we use $:attribute for a private attribute, do we call :method for a private method?"

Adam K

Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 06:04:56PM +1100, Adam Kennedy wrote:

I should add that Darren and I, who both have similar tendencies towards larger scale coding where consistency is far preferred to compactness, both ended up concluding that our style policies will be to _always_ use explicit invocants (except of course for one liners).

I thought your conclusion was you'd only use an explicit invocant if .foo
meant $ And to drop it if .foo means $ as there's no ambiguity.

Reply via email to