On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 09:10:49PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
if ( want-{count} 2 ) { return $one, $two }
Will that be interpreted as:
'want'-{count}
want()-{count}
To be consistent, it should mean the first one. That is, the infix
operator - should always autoquote the
Currently,
foo-bar($baz)
can be parsed either as C'foo'-bar($baz), or as Cfoo()-bar($baz)
depending on how the symbol Cfoo was used on other places. The proposal
is to always choose the first meaning: make C - autoquote the bareword
on the left.
Here is a question: How does this
==
Please show me how to write:
print STDERR @stuff;
without it, while keeping it a method of the STDERR filehandle, and
without requiring -.
==
Why not use -?
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
Why not use -?
$IO::STDERR-print @stuff;
print $IO::STDERR @stuff;
Ok, something here is extreme confused. Is not the second form an
instance of indirect object syntax?
==
This would cause about
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 04:26:47PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
$IO::STDERR-print @stuff;
print $IO::STDERR @stuff;
Ok, something here is extreme confused. Is not the second form an
instance of indirect object syntax?
It is not with a bareword at the second place, so is not causing the
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 04:26:47PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
$IO::STDERR-print @stuff;
print $IO::STDERR @stuff;
Ok, something here is extreme confused. Is not the second form an
instance of indirect object syntax?
It is not with a bareword at the
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 04:52:12PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Ok, you should clarify this. You're not suggesting that indirect object
syntax be removed. You're suggesting that it should not accept
barewords. These are two separate things.
Agreed. I realized the ambiguity only after I posted
'foo'-bar($baz)
looks visually clattered, but Cfoo()-bar($baz) looks as if it expresses
its meaning. The default choice is done so that if you need other
choice, your code does not look artificial.
Hear, hear!
foo-bar($baz, $coon)
should be made synonymous with
foo-bar
foo-bar($baz, $coon)
should be made synonymous with
foo-bar $baz, $coon
I can see no ambiguity in this call, but it not always works with Perl5.
Arrow invocation does not a listop make. Only indirect object invocation
style does that.
print STDOUT $foo, $bar, $glarch;
is a list
On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 08:08:06AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
There only way to avoid the action at a distance is to prohibit one of these
interpretations. Since the other way Cfoo-bar $baz to write this
method call is as convenient as the indirect object syntax, the proposal
is to
This RFC proposes to remove indirect object syntax
Please show me how to write:
print STDERR @stuff;
without it, while keeping it a method of the STDERR filehandle, and
without requiring -.
-Nate
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Method calls should not suffer from the action on a distance
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Ilya Zakharevich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 15 Sep 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 244
Version: 1
12 matches
Mail list logo
