So what's the rationale behind the latest changes? I thought p6
consistently regarded the sigil as part of the name; seems like that
should go for named parameters, too. In fact, sigils would seem to be
a good way to distinguish named parameters from pairs.
Alternatively, reserve either :k(v)
2006/8/26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So what's the rationale behind the latest changes? I thought p6
consistently regarded the sigil as part of the name; seems like that
should go for named parameters, too. In fact, sigils would seem to be
a good way to distinguish named parameters
http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/docs/Perl6/Spec/Documentation.pod
...is *way* out of date. It predates the meeting Ingy, Larry, Audrey,
and I had in Tokyo, in which most of the kinks were ironed out. I have
a new draft of S26 with the design team at the moment, and am close to
having a first
So what's the rationale behind the latest changes? I thought p6
consistently regarded the sigil as part of the name; seems like that
should go for named parameters, too. In fact, sigils would seem to be
a good way to distinguish named parameters from pairs.
Alternatively, reserve either :k(v)
So what's the rationale behind the latest changes? I thought p6
consistently regarded the sigil as part of the name; seems like that
should go for named parameters, too. In fact, sigils would seem to be
a good way to distinguish named parameters from pairs.
Alternatively, reserve either :k(v)
