On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 07:04:24AM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: On 21/07/05, Adriano Ferreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > But is there any other case where we need an explicit tail call with "goto"?
:
: When the callee uses `caller
Which we may not know, especially if we're tail-ca
On 21/07/05, Adriano Ferreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But is there any other case where we need an explicit tail call with "goto"?
When the callee uses `caller
--
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Perl and Parrot hacker
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 11:58:41AM -0300, Adriano Ferreira wrote:
: Larry said:
: > So I guess I agree that .tailcall is probably just a bad synonym for
"return".
:
: But is there any other case where we need an explicit tail call with "goto"?
I suppose that depends on whether the tail-call opti
Larry said:
> So I guess I agree that .tailcall is probably just a bad synonym for "return".
But is there any other case where we need an explicit tail call with "goto"?
And about a way to curry a method with its receiver to a sub, is there
a shorthand?
Thanks,
Adriano.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 09:59:57AM -0300, Adriano Ferreira wrote:
: I can understand the convenience of turning a method into a subroutine
: by currying the object. Syntactical support for this seems cool too.
: But, can someone remind me why there is the need for an explicit tail
: call syntax? It
On 7/20/05, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a Perl 6 tail call syntax,
> One suggestion was a tweak of `can`'s definition: instead of returning
> a reference to the method, it returns one with the invocant already
> curried into it. Thus, the above becomes this:
