On 9/20/06, Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
What we really need is a unary operator that is sugar for [,](=(...)). Just
don't anyone suggest *. :-)
I was thinking about that. I wonder if [\] would make sense, or is that
just begging to have in-editor parsers fall
the following normalization:
1. .call, method definition call(), and .wrap call all take captures.
2. .call() and both types of call() all pass on the arguments of the
current subroutine.
3. To call with no arguments, use .call(\()) and call(\()).
4. Introduce some syntax for getting a capture
Trey Harris wrote:
Might I propose the following normalization:
1. .call, method definition call(), and .wrap call all take captures.
2. .call() and both types of call() all pass on the arguments of the
current subroutine.
3. To call with no arguments, use .call(\()) and call(\()).
I
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 11:18:09AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: Trey Harris wrote:
: Might I propose the following normalization:
:
: 1. .call, method definition call(), and .wrap call all take captures.
:
: 2. .call() and both types of call() all pass on the arguments of the
:current
Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 11:18:09AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: Trey Harris wrote:
: Might I propose the following normalization:
:
: 1. .call, method definition call(), and .wrap call all take captures.
:
: 2. .call() and both types of call() all pass on the arguments
