Oh, wow. I was just asking about the spec; didn't know this stuff
already worked. Rakudos to the team! :)
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Carl Mäsak wrote:
> Mark (>):
>> Does the unpacking participate in dispatch? If a Hash comes in as $t
>> with no 'left' key, will it fail to match?
>
> Yes
Mark (>):
> Does the unpacking participate in dispatch? If a Hash comes in as $t
> with no 'left' key, will it fail to match?
Yes.
$ perl6 -e 'sub foo(%h($left)) { say $left }; foo({ left => "OH HAI" })'
OH HAI
$ perl6 -e 'sub foo(%h($left)) {}; foo({ no => "left key" })'
Not enough positional
Does the unpacking participate in dispatch? If a Hash comes in as $t
with no 'left' key, will it fail to match?
On Tuesday, March 9, 2010, Little Walker wrote:
>> Which is pretty powerful, really.
>
> Absolutely - I think you're referring to the 'type subset' stuff which
> is great.
>
>> This i
> Which is pretty powerful, really.
Absolutely - I think you're referring to the 'type subset' stuff which
is great.
> This is where Perl 6 is not the same as functional
> languages, since it's got an imperative OO element as well.
True, there can be friction between the functional style and OO,
> That's almost exactly the example from:
>
> http://perlcabal.org/syn/S06.html#Unpacking_tree_node_parameters
1. I feel incredibly embarrassed to have missed this
2. This is awesome!
Hi,
Little Walker wrote:
> I've been looking around to see if there's been any discussion of
> introducing functional programming-style pattern matching for method/
> function dispatch. Could someone point me to any such discussions?
It's done multi dispatch in Perl 6, and you can find an introd
