John M. Dlugosz wrote: > The synopses are contradictary over the way 'constant' works. First it says > that it is a declarator like 'my'.
That's what STD.pm says:
token scope_declarator:my { <sym> <scoped> {*} }
token scope_declarator:our { <sym> <scoped> {*} }
token scope_declarator:state { <sym> <scoped> {*} }
token scope_declarator:constant { <sym> <scoped> {*} }
token scope_declarator:has { <sym> <scoped> {*} }
> Then in S12 it shows
>
> my constant ...
> and
> our constant ...
>
> that is, independant from the my or our declarator.
I grep'ped STD.pm tentatively for other occurrences of 'constant', and
couldn't find where that should be implemented.
> Assuming the second way is newer/better, what is the grammar for this? Is it
> a declarator if used on its own, or a different category?
>
> Oh, and should it still say that if you leave off the optional 'my' or 'our'
> that it defaults to 'my', or should it be 'our' like everything else?
>
> --John
--
Moritz Lenz
http://moritz.faui2k3.org/ | http://perl-6.de/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
