Thomas SandlaÃ 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 way. Luke