On 14 Mar 2009 23:17:26 +0200, Evgeny wrote:
>
> So the block (sub) works without the word "sub" only if it is the first
> parameter?
Yes. My second answer was for block meaning closure, not about the
syntactic sugar.
Actually having two pairs of {} together is kind of possible, but
does not do what you want:
sub run (&$$) { $_[0]->(); print %{$_[1]}, %{$_[2]} }
run { print "ok" } { key => "value" }, { 1 .. 9 };
I didn't see your actual DSL requirements. As I also mentioned, possibly
this syntax may work for you (try to figure out the needed prototypes):
apply { one-thing } on { another-thing };
Regards,
Mikhael.
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Mikhael Goikhman <[email protected]>
> > wrote: On 14 Mar 2009 19:20:05 +0200, Evgeny wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually, in ruby I can have a method that accepts multiple blocks.
> >> Blocks don't HAVE to come as the last argument. def (&first_block,
> >> &second_block) will work as well.
> >
> > The same syntax works in Perl. We just spoke about DSL (syntactic
> > sugar).
> >
> > Moreover, in Perl you can pass any number of anonymous functions
> > (closures) defined inline, something that is for example impossible
> > in Python by design.
> >
> > run(sub { do something; do well }, sub { do something else });
> >
> >> But in perl, I tried to do the same - by replacing sm(&$) to be
> >> sm($&) - but it does not work. So does that mean that in perl I
> >> can't have the block where ever I want, and pass it as the last
> >> argument? Why?
> >
> > Nope, this is incorrect. I demonstrated this in the previous message:
> >
> > Given /regular-expression-here/, sub { some code here };
> >
> > This works too (no need for parentheses if you specify prototypes):
> >
> > run $first_arg, sub { "second" }, 3, sub { "forth" };
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mikhael.
--
perl -e 'print+chr(64+hex)for+split//,d9b815c07f9b8d1e'
_______________________________________________
Perl mailing list
[email protected]
http://perl.org.il/mailman/listinfo/perl
