On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:45:57 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> I think we'll need to figure out how to shorten $_.foo instead.
It looks short enough to me already. More importantly, its meaning
is immediately obvious.
> Either that, or there has to be a way to explicitly make $_ the
> invocant of a subblock.
How about something like this?
method foo{
.bar; # Acts on self
for @stuff {
.bar; # Acts on self
}
for @stuff -> $_ :self {
.bar; # Acts on self, which is currently $_
}
}
Seems like overkill for trivial blocks though:
map -> $_ :self { .bar } 1..10;
but you can still just write $_.bar
Maybe we could allow $_ to be elided?
map -> :self { .bar } 1..10;
> At the moment I'm trying to see if I could get used to ..method
> meaning $_.method, and whether it buys me anything psychologically.
I still prefer $_.method
> Suppose you are one of those rare people who actually checks the
> return value of print to see if you filled up the disk:
>
> if print {...}
>
> That doesn't parse currently ... (Backtracking the parser is
> probably not the right answer.)
If you're going to the trouble to check that (which I do,
sometimes), surely two extra characters [$_ or ()] aren't that
much of a problem? You probably wouldn't be using implicit
variables, anyway.
A backtracking parser seems pretty scary to me. If it takes a lot of
work for the compiler to figure things out, it's going to be even
harder for the programmer.
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"I think this is one of those traumatic things eggs have to face
to prepare a good omelette."
-- Jarkko Hietaniemi
