On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 09:54:36 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> That's not a problem as long as you keep your positionals together.

Oh, I assumed the it's

        /(<named>* <positionals>*)|(<positionals>* <named>*)/,

        /<named>* <positionals>* <named>*/

> : If there is some really odd code signature which takes in a mess, I
> : may want to intermix positionals and named's in order to increase
> : readability.
> This is Perl 6, which means it'll be trivially easy to implement
>     no strict "positionals";
> or whatever you want to call it.

By the way, how does FFI relate to this? Say I'm calling a remote
function, like

        use icky_language:SomePackage;

        some_function( #not for the children );

> :     new Dog; # uh, didn't you mean 'new Dog:;'?
> The colon makes no difference there.

Oops... Tee hee =)

> The use of colon as the SMD invocant marker is actually just a
> degenerate case of MMD tiebreaking syntax.

Again with the coughing

> : I would much rather see it go away, frankly, and let the issues be
> : resolved by simplifying the OOP system. *cough*, *cough*.
> Well, I can see the appeal of optimizing for the implementor rather than
> the user.  A lot of languages have already tried that...  :-)

My OOP simplification coughs were actually because I think the OOP
system is a little too complex for the user, not the implementor,
but I've brought that up enough times.

For the implementor SMD is just MMD with some constraints, so it's
really just an extension of the implementation, so I'm not worried
either way. If you're interested I can dig up a chat log where
autrijus and I argue over this a bit.

 ()  Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0xEBD27418  perl hacker &
 /\  kung foo master: /me sushi-spin-kicks : neeyah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Attachment: pgpE6IEEhOIaB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to