Nathan Torkington wrote:
Not every subroutine corresponds to a method call exposing
object-internal data. Most of my subroutines *do* something and make
no sense to be called lvaluably. Explicit marking the compiler pick
up assignments to non-lvaluable subroutines. It makes sense to
Nathan Wiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nathan Torkington wrote:
Not every subroutine corresponds to a method call exposing
object-internal data. Most of my subroutines *do* something and make
no sense to be called lvaluably. Explicit marking the compiler pick
up assignments to
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 12:14:09AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
No problem. In fact, this fits under your rules. HOWEVER, it also
assumes that Lincoln thought that param() was :lvalue-worthy. What if he
forgot? Or didn't think of this case?
Then you email him with a patch, and your reasons why
And if lvalue access were made the only way of doing assignment of
params in this context then a whole bunch of the code in param could
be removed.
Maybe this is the confusion. I'm not saying subs should ONLY be lvalue.
I think they should be both rvalue and lvalue at the same time.
On Aug 16, 8:32am, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Maybe this is the confusion. I'm not saying subs should ONLY be lvalue.
I think they should be both rvalue and lvalue at the same time.
Point noted and understood, but I'm with the general consensus here.
Lvalue subs should have to be explicitly marked
Ooops! The author didn't use :lvalue. So even though this makes perfect
sense to be able to do, since the author forgot to use :lvalue, you lose
a really cool syntactic tool. This seems backwards.
Seems right to me. I'd rather assignment to a function work on
purpose rather than on
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 08:40:18AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
See, I don't see it as that big a deal, especially not if lvalue and
rvalue subs work identically.
Hrm. Perhaps you aren't explaining yourself clearly. Let's pretend
that there is a magical value called $LVALUE that contains the
Nathan Wiger writes:
Well, this argument makes more sense. However, I still have to disagree.
In fact, I think the opposite: ALL subs *should* be lvaluable by
default. Here's why.
I think I failed to explain Damian's use of the word 'dangerous'.
my $var;
sub routine {
$var;
}
Nathan Torkington wrote:
Then I think both of these should act exactly the same:
somesub(@values);
somesub = @values;
EUGH. No way!
Assignment should be used to reflect (get this) assignment. Using
it as argument passing is disgusting. I'm assuming you're not
Nathan Wiger writes:
Nonetheless, I think a better thing would be to figure out if it's
possible to "fix" this issue. I would *really* like lvalue subs ==
rvalue subs.
I think conflating:
foo(@vals)
and
foo() = @vals
is misleading and going to cause more confusion that it solves.
I
I think conflating:
foo(@vals)
and
foo() = @vals
is misleading and going to cause more confusion that it solves.
In simple cases, yes. The above looks misleading. Advanced stuff like
chaining though would be really cool. I could come up with oodles of
examples. :-)
What kinds of
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 01:51:09PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Nathan Wiger writes:
Nonetheless, I think a better thing would be to figure out if it's
possible to "fix" this issue. I would *really* like lvalue subs ==
rvalue subs.
I think conflating:
foo(@vals)
and
foo() =
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Scott Duff" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: Make lvalue subs the default (was Re: RFC 107 (v1) lvalue subs
should receive the rvalue as an argument)
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 12:14:09AM -0700, Nathan Wiger
"NW" == Nathan Wiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
NW The concept isn't that hard ":lvalue makes it so you can assign to
NW subs". But the hard part is deciding *where* it should be used. I think
NW it puts an unfair burden on a CPAN author to try and forsee all the
NW possible uses of a sub.
I'm
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Hrm. Perhaps you aren't explaining yourself clearly. Let's pretend
that there is a magical value called $LVALUE that contains the thing
being assigned. Are you saying that in
somesub = $value;
the subroutine Csomesub, being lvaluable by default is
15 matches
Mail list logo
