Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from October 2001
Larry revealed:
> : method bar($me : *@_) {
> : ...
> : }
> :
> : will use $me instead.
>
> That is the approach I currently favor. (Though I'd probably leave
> out the space in front of the colon.) And it has the advantage that
> $me is automatically assumed to be read only.
Okay, so let's clarify:
1. If you declare a method *with* a colon separator in its parameter
list:
method foo ($self: $foosrc, $foodest, $etc) {...}
then the parameter before the colon is bound to the invocant,
and the parameters after the colon are bound to the other
args of the method call.
2. If you declare a method *without* a colon separator in its
parameter list:
method foo ($foosrc, $foodest, $etc) {...}
then the parameters are bound to the non-invocant
args of the method call and the invocant itself is
inaccessible (except implicitly through the unary dot
operator).
3. If you declare a method *without* any parameter list:
method foo {...}
then the method call arguments (including the invocant?)
are bound to @_.
Is that correct?
Damian
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next