Em Qui, 2009-03-12 às 11:49 -0700, Larry Wall escreveu: > In addition to what Jonathan said, it is possible that the ability > to coerce multiple arguments depends on the type itself, since we > probably want to allow Foo(1,2,3) and such for listy types that > don't necessarily want to use the [1,2,3] shortcut. > But my main point is that $x = Foo $bar is a two-terms-in-a-row > error when Foo is anything resembling a type, enum, or value, none > of which expect to be turned into a listop or prefix. This is > independent of how the object might respond to (), if at all.
I see, but I insist... isn't it weird that we use the absolutely same syntax for unrelated meanings? > Oh, btw, re irc conversation the other day, .() and () are always > identical in postfix position, just as .++ and ++ are the same. > The . carries no semantics when qualifying a postfix, even when > accessing attributes $.foo.() vs $.foo(), which mean exactly the > same thing because such postfixes are part of the special form. Just a quick paste for those not following IRC... <ruoso> so do I always need to use two sets of parens when I'm accessing an attribute that happens to contain a closure that I want to invoke? <TimToady> yes daniel
