Daniel Ruoso wrote: > Daniel Ruoso escreveu: >> What really got me confused is that I don't see what problem this change >> solves, since it doesn't seem that a signature that expects an invocant >> (i.e.: cares about invocant) will accept a call without an invocant, so >> "method foo($b,$c) is export" still need to have a transformed signature >> in the sub version of foo. > > Thinking again, > > Unless that actually means that we're really removing all the runtime > semantics around the invocant... and methods implicitly do "my $self = > shift" all the time... > > That'd be sad... we loose "invocant" semantics... SMOP will require a > HUGE refactoring... :(
Remember that Captures are also being used as Perl 6's answer to references. When used in that way, problems arise when you treat "a single item" as being fundamentally different from "a one-item list". -- Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang
