I don't follow your examples.  What is the logic behind them?

On 9/3/06, Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
   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

   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

And I expect that if either or both matches the method is considered
to be a match.  Right?


Reply via email to