On 10/7/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Miroslav Silovic skribis 2005-10-07 13:07 (+0200):
> > Can an inline role be named?
> > 0 but role is_default {}
> This is a nice idea. It would require named roles (and to really be
> succesful, also classes, subs, methods, ...) declarations to be
> expressions, but I see no downside to that.

Well, I see a cognitive downside.  That is, package declarations (the
default) don't create closures.  It's like this:

    sub foo($x) {
        sub bar() {
            return $x;
        return &bar;
    foo(42).();   # ????

Restricting expressions to anonymous subs forces you to say what you
mean.  Because sometimes when you say:

    0 but role is_default { }

You're going to mean package role, and some of the time you're going
to mean lexical.  I'd be more in favor of:

    0 but my role is_default { }

In fact, it may be the case that that's already valid.


Reply via email to