"Kyle R . Burton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
use self = 'self';
use self = 'this';
Of course, if you _really_ want to avoid religious wars, you would
need a non-selfish pragma name in the first place.
-- Johan
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 01:36:02AM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
it looks like typechecking and named params should fork off into a subs
subgroup. all of you with an itch to write an rfc, here is your chance.
Anyone want to put their hand up as a chair of such a sublist? Damian's
got the closest
Damian Conway wrote:
One of my many RFCs will include a proposal for a $SELF variable along
those lines.
Before it's too late - please, don't impose either '$self' or '$this',
but make this a per-module choice. I deal with people of both these
religions...
Hildo
Before it's too late - please, don't impose either '$self' or '$this',
but make this a per-module choice. I deal with people of both these
religions...
What about '$me'? It ties in nicely with 'my' (although perhaps for the
wrong reasons), it's half as much typing as 'self' or 'this' and
What about '$me'? It ties in nicely with 'my' (although perhaps for the
wrong reasons), it's half as much typing as 'self' or 'this' and we get
to annoy both sets of religious zealots at once. :-)=
You took the words right out of my...err...fingers!
Although, of course, it will
One of my many RFCs will include a proposal for a $SELF variable along
those lines.
Why not allow for the choice of the name of self, perhaps through a pragma?
use self = 'self';
use self = 'this';
or something along those lines -- since it's currently up to the devleoper
anyway. Somethign
One of my many RFCs will include a proposal for a $SELF variable along
those lines.
Why not allow for the choice of the name of self, perhaps through a pragma?
use self = 'self';
use self = 'this';
or something along those lines -- since it's currently up
