(Please ignore the previous mail. I was writing that in sleepy mode. Sorry.)
On 8/8/06, Daniel Hulme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry to patch the patch, but in
> -Other sigils binds only to the I<last> argument with that name:
> +Other sigil binds only to the I<last> argument with that name:
the replacement makes no more sense than the original. "Other sigils
bind" or "Any other sigil binds" would work here.
Oh, thank you very much for correcting this. I didn't even read the
sentence after I made the change. ;-) I should be more careful the
next time.
Also, I believe the original of
> have an explicit declarator such as C<sub> or C<method>; bare blocks and
> -"pointy" subs are never considered to be routines in that sense. To return
> +"pointy" blocks are never considered to be routines in that sense. To
> return
> from a block, use C<leave> instead--see below.
is correct. Pointy subs are consistently known as such, and I don't see
any reason to rename them: the -> symbol promotes a block (and optional
arg list) into an anonymous sub, and the name reflects this.
I'm sorry that I disagree with this one since I am following Audrey's
changes made as r10478:
* S04, S06: "Pointy sub" and "Pointy block" was used
interchangeably in the text, but as uri++ pointed out,
it was very confusing as we also say that "return" escapes
from subs but not blocks.
Hence, rename all mention of "pointy sub" to "pointy block".
As Audrey said, the term "pointy sub" is very confusing in the context
of using the return statement. I second her opinion here. :=)
Thanks!
Agent
