HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
The whole point was to deautomatize it! However, here's an
interesting solution: pairs are scanned for *syntactically* *on the
top level* of a function call (allowing named() or however we spell it
as a fallback when we want to be dynamic). However, :foo(bar) and
On 8/24/05, Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Larry wrote:
Plus I still think it's a really bad idea to allow intermixing of
positionals and named. We could allow named at the beginning or end
but still keep a constraint that all positionals must occur together
in one zone.
If
Here's a suggestion:
Outside of argument lists, both a='b' and :a('b') (and friends) are
equivalent, and denote an ordinary pair value.
Within argument lists, both of them are special syntactic forms for
named arguments:
foo(a = 'b', :cd); # both named args
If you want to pass pair values
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 20:23:55 +1000, Stuart Cook wrote:
Here's a suggestion:
snip
Within argument lists, both of them are special syntactic forms for
named arguments:
foo(a = 'b', :cd); # both named args
snip
my $pair = :ab;
foo($pair); # not a named-arg call
snip
...or else
Larry wrote:
Plus I still think it's a really bad idea to allow intermixing of
positionals and named. We could allow named at the beginning or end
but still keep a constraint that all positionals must occur together
in one zone.
If losing the magic from ='d pairs isn't buying us named args
Larry mused:
On the other hand, I'm not all that attached to colon itself.
I *am*!!!
If, as proposed elsewhere, we get rid of the %Foo:: notation in favor of
some Foo variant, then trailing :: becomes available (ignoring ??/::
for the moment), and
new Dog:: tail = 'long'
almost makes
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 04:27:03PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Larry wrote:
Plus I still think it's a really bad idea to allow intermixing of
positionals and named. We could allow named at the beginning or end
but still keep a constraint that all positionals must occur together
in one
I don't think this example reads very clearly. Visually you have to parse
until you see the next = and then back track one word to figure out the key.
move( from= $x, $y, delta= $up, $right );
Personally I'd write that as either
move(from = [$x, $y], delta = [$up, $right]);
OR
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Damian Conway wrote:
Larry wrote:
Plus I still think it's a really bad idea to allow intermixing of
positionals and named. We could allow named at the beginning or end
but still keep a constraint that all positionals must occur together
in one zone.
If losing the
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 08:38:39AM -0400, John Macdonald wrote:
When calling a function, I would like to be able to have a
mixture of named and positional arguments. The named argument
acts as a tab into the argument list and subsequent unnamed
arguments continue on.
I see a main point of
I've been trying to thing about how to make this read right without too
much line noise. I think Lukes keyword approach (named) is on the
right track.
If we want named params at both start and end, then its bound to be a
bit confusing. But perhaps we can say that they're always at the end --
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 10:12:39AM -0700, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 08:38:39AM -0400, John Macdonald wrote:
When calling a function, I would like to be able to have a
mixture of named and positional arguments. The named argument
acts as a tab into the argument list and
Just my two cents then back to lurking. The idea of having named parameters
with different names than the variables ++. Otherwise your public API is
dependent on private variables which is a Bad Thing and the only thing that
realy bugged me about current named parameters in P6.
BTW why is it
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 06:42:04PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
: On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 08:27:38 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: Plus I still think it's a really bad idea to allow intermixing of
: positionals and named. We could allow named at the beginning or end
: but still keep a constraint
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 10:51:25AM -0600, Eric wrote:
: Just my two cents then back to lurking. The idea of having named parameters
: with different names than the variables ++. Otherwise your public API is
: dependent on private variables which is a Bad Thing and the only thing that
: realy
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 09:54:36 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
That's not a problem as long as you keep your positionals together.
Oh, I assumed the it's
/(named* positionals*)|(positionals* named*)/,
not
/named* positionals* named*/
: If there is some really odd code signature
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 06:42:04PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
If there is some really odd code signature which takes in a mess, I
may want to intermix positionals and named's in order to increase
readability.
AFAIR, named parameter syntax will work for positionals as well[*].
So even if you
We've seen many problems come up with the current special treatment of
pairs. Here's what I can think of:
* Pairs are restricted to a particular position in the argument list, which
leads to confusion (why isn't this being passed named?) and poor
end-weight in something like this:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 10:31:34AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: I propose that we move the magic out of the Pair type, and into a
: syntactic form.
That's kinda the direction we were already moving with the *%foo proposal,
so I think I like it, but I'll need to steep my brain in a bit more
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 10:31:34 +, Luke Palmer wrote:
In short, me too.
Now some comments:
foo($a, $b, $c)
You *know* that you're passing three positionals.
This is very very important for least surprise and all that.
It's much less work for the runtime. You don't have to scan
Hmm, if we take + away from named, it can become the required marker,
so
sub foo ($a,$b,?$c)
is really short for
sub foo (+$a,+$b,?$c)
and required named parameters then become
sub bar (+:$key)
And, of course, that means that
sub baz (+?$key)
is a required optional
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 08:27:38 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Plus I still think it's a really bad idea to allow intermixing of
positionals and named. We could allow named at the beginning or end
but still keep a constraint that all positionals must occur together
in one zone.
This is something
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 06:30:41PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
: On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 10:31:34 +, Luke Palmer wrote:
:
: In short, me too.
:
: Now some comments:
:
: foo($a, $b, $c)
:
: You *know* that you're passing three positionals.
:
: This is very very important for least
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 08:39:24AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Actually, that's an argument that : is in a different class than the regex
: quantifiers, and required named should be
:
: sub bar (+$:key)
:
: as I speculated earlier. Maybe we just force that to bind to $key instead
: of $:key.
24 matches
Mail list logo
