I don't follow your examples. What is the logic behind them?
On 9/3/06, Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Examples: Arguments (<1 2>) to signatures 1. (@a?) and 2. (@a) calls 2
For example, I would expect this one to be ambiguous, because the 1. (@a?) sub introduces two different signatures, 1. () and 1. (@a). When given <1 2>, 1. (@a) matches as well as 2. (@a), so it is ambiguous.
Arguments (@a) to signatures 1. (@a?) and 2. (@a) IS TIE
The only difference I can see between this and the one above is @a vs. <1 2>, which ought to behave the same way, right?
Note that the variant /with/ the parameter can be considered an exact match, but but the variant /without/ it cannot be considered an exact match.
And I expect that if either or both matches the method is considered to be a match. Right? Luke
