Front page | perl.perl6.language.objects |
Postings from August 2000
> > (Or, was it already intended that the implementation of 'use > > invocant' might be some sort of compile-time macro?) > No. I think a macro facility for Perl should be more general than just > whacking some code in at the start of every subroutine. Yes. I didn't phrase my comments well. Sorry. > The use invocant was proposed as a way to maintain backwards compatibility > and yet give everyone the invocant access syntax he or she personally favours. Sure, but isn't this essentially a macro? (If it *isn't*, then I'm missing something... which could very well be the case). What I meant to say was more along the lines of "if this could be done as a macro, does it need to be a pragma, or could it be part of a standard macro package?" And, secondly, "if this *is* part of a standard macro package, wouldn't it be cool to let it shove arbitrary code around rather than just doing invocant access syntax?" Dirk