On 10/18/05, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.

My thought was that it wouldn't be much different than *%hash as a signature
except you wouldn't loose order and the keys wouldn't me mashed. Is what I'm
suggesting more magical in someway? I freely admit it might be a bad idea, I
just wasn't sure why and thought i might bring it up since this seems
different than the magical ness of pairs before.

Eric Hodges

Reply via email to