On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 20:41:35 +0300, Gabor Szabo wrote:
> On 5/14/07, John Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >  Removing the sigil
> > on a function call (it used to always be written &sub(args...))
> > did, I think, lead to the difficulty in perl5 where it became
> > difficult to add new keyword operators to the language - because
> > they could conflict with subroutine names in existing code.
> Actually I think I never understood  this issue.
> We claim that having the sigils saves us from stepping on our future
> feet by making sure keywords of the language are always different
> from any variable we might create.
> The fact that function don't need a sigil any more and it is even
> AFAIK discouraged to be used makes *this* argument mute.
> Thought this thread might not be the best place to ask this
> I'd be glad to read some explanation about this.

In Perl 6, the & sigil is used to distinguish between

foo bar

which calls bar and passes the return value to foo, and

foo &bar

which passes bar as a Code object to foo.


(sorry, I deleted your message by mistake, I'm attempting to fake up a reply)

Reply via email to