TSa wrote: > Jon Lang wrote: >> item($x) # Dwimmey use of item context. > > IIRC this is the same as $$x, right? Or does that > extract the invocant slot without dwimmery?
Umm... good question. This is a rather nasty paradox: on the one hand, we want to be able to stack $, @, and % with capture objects in analogy to Perl 5's references, which would indicate that they should tie directly to the invocant, positional parameters, and named parameters, respectively. OTOH, the intuitive meaning for these symbols would seem to be "item context", "list context", and "hash context", respectively, which would argue for the dwimmery. The question is which of these two sets of semantics should be emphasized; once that's answered, we need to be sure to provide an alternative syntax that gives us the other set. IOW, which one of these is "make common things easy", and which one is "make uncommon things possible"? >> $x._ # the Capture object's invocant, as an item. > > How about $x.() here? That looks symmetric to the other > postfix operators and should be regarded as a method > dispatched on the invocant or some such. Symmetric, but ugly. I suggested the underscore because '.foo' is the same as '$_.foo'; so you can think of the invocant of a capture object as being roughly analogous to a topic. -- Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang
