Apologies if I'm Mr Magoo, but I did a bit of a search on this just now, and
uncovered little more than a pithy quote from Piers Cawley in:
http://dev.perl.org/perl6/list-summaries/2005/p6summary.2005-07-05.html
asserting that Multiple implementations are good, m'kay.
If anyone can point me to
On 12/24/05, Andrew Savige [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm curious to know if the Perl 6 design team fully endorse a change from the
Perl 5 the (single) implementation *is* the specification model to a
multiple implementations are good, m'kay, but from a single (detailed and
precise)
-Original Message-
From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2005 7:26 PM
To: perl6-language@perl.org
Subject: binding arguments
Merry Christmas to you all!
We use = for pairs, but also for something very different: named
argument binding. Yes, pairs
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 11:25:43PM +1100, Andrew Savige wrote:
: Apologies if I'm Mr Magoo, but I did a bit of a search on this just now, and
: uncovered little more than a pithy quote from Piers Cawley in:
:
: http://dev.perl.org/perl6/list-summaries/2005/p6summary.2005-07-05.html
:
: asserting
On 12/25/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
foo(
named_arg := $value,
other_arg := $value,
);
I'll point out that Joe's argument is completely moot, because you're
not using $s on the named arguments. As a matter of fact, we could
double up the := symbol as both
