Hi,

I am currently reviewing bits of the spec surrounding multiple dispatch and, of course, have a question or two (I'll probably have some more later, as the dust settles in my head).


1) The spec says:

--
A proto also adds an implicit multi to all routines of
the same short name within its scope, unless they have an explicit modifier.
--

If you write:

proto sub foo(:$thing) { ... }
sub foo(Int $x) { ... }
only sub foo() { ... }

Does this give some kind of error, because you've declared something with 'only', but it clearly can't be the only one because we also have a proto in there?


2) If I write:

multi sub foo(Int $blah) { ... } # 1
proto sub foo(:$blah) is thingy { ... } # 2
multi sub foo() { ... } # 3

Does #1 get the thingy trait, or not because it was declared before the proto was? I'm clear that #3 gets it...


3) The spec says:

--
A parameter list may have at most one double semicolon; parameters after it are never considered for multiple dispatch (except of course that they can still
"veto" if their number or types mismatch).
--

Does the "veto" take place once the multiple dispatch has given us a candidate and we try to bind the parameters to the signature, or as part of the multiple dispatch? For example, supposing I declare:

multi foo(Int $a;; Num $b) { ... } # 1
multi foo(Int $a;; Str $b) { ... } # 2
multi foo(Int $a;; Num $b, Num $c) { ... } # 3

What happens with these?

foo(2, RandomThing.new); # Ambiguous dispatch error
foo(2, 2.5); # Ambiguous dispatch error, or 1 because 2 vetos?
foo(1, 2.5, 3.4); # Ambiguous dispatch error, or 3 because only one with arity match?

Basically, what I'm getting at is, are all of these multi-methods ambiguous because they all have the same long name, and just because binding fails doesn't make us return into the multiple dispatch algorithm? (This is what I'm kinda expecting and would mean every one of these fails. But I just want to check that is what was meant by the wording.)

Thanks!

Jonathan

Reply via email to