On 10/18/05, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Currently we (can|will be able to) do
>
> "string".trans( (['h','e'] => "0") );
> "string".trans( <== ['h','e'] => "0");
>
> Those are fine and i can live with that, but it seems that if we made the
> signature of trans
>
> method trans(Str $self: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) {};
>
> Then we could just do plain old:
> "string".trans(['h','e'] => "0");
>
> Which to me seems a lot easier to read. I would propose that it only effects
> named params so that there is no concern about pairs in values and how to
> handle them.
Uh, no. Certainly not for a method. For a bare sub that has been
predeclared it may be possible. But we don't want to remagicalize
pairs after we just argued the heck out of it to make pairs *always*
be named parameters.
The way I'd do the interface is like this:
"string".trans([
<h e> => "0",
]);
It looks nicer if you use the indirect object form:
trans "string": [
<h e> => "0",
];
Luke
