Thomas Sandlaà writes:
> Aaron Sherman wrote:
> >No, that was most of the point. &foo did not declare a return type, and
> >while my code was simplistic, we obviously cannot be certain what &foo
> >might return in the general case.
> Sorry that I've spoiled that. But I wonder if it's just in the
> examples here on the list or a general laxity to not specify a return
> type of subs and methods. 

It depends on the programmer.  I'm sure that you and probably Aaron will
always declare your return types.  I'm quite sure that I will not except
for when it effects a semantic that I want.

Ultimately, it depends on how Perl 5-ish you want to program Perl 6 in
this regard.  I definitely enjoy Perl 5's late binding for the most
part.  Again, I usually only resort to early binding things (like type
declarations and sub prototypes) when it changes the semantics in some


Reply via email to