Autrijus Tang skribis 2005-05-15 19:28 (+0800):
> On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 01:19:53PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> > Or was your choice of words poor, and did you not mean to discuss the
> > dot's *default*, but instead a standard way to write the current
> > invocant?
> I think what Rob suggested is that:
>     method ($foo)
> means
>     method ($self: $foo)

Then I hereby apologise to Rob for my own poor choice of words.

I don't like the idea of having a normal identifier ever used by
default, except $_, which is already aliased to the invocant.


Reply via email to