Hi,
Juerd wrote:
> Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-10-10 20:08 (+0200):
>> Named arguments can -- under the proposal -- only ever exist in
>> calls.
>
> Which leaves us with no basic datastructure that can hold both
> positional and named arguments. This is a problem because in a call,
> they can be combined.
Very true. This is why we need Luke's Tuple proposal [1]. Basically:
my $tuple = (a => 1, (b => 2)):{ ...block... }; # $tuple.isa(Tuple)
# Tuples are ordinary objects -- they can be stored
# in scalars, arrays, etc.
# But splatting tuples unfolds their magic:
foo(*$tuple); # same as
foo(a => 1, (b => 2)):{ ...block...};
# named arg "a", positional pair (b => 2),
# adverbial block { ...block... }
# (Yep, under the current proposal, tuple construction conflicts
# with list/array construction. FWIW, I'd be fine with
# using Tuple.new(...) as the tuple constructor.)
--Ingo
[1] http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/docs/notes/theory.pod
