Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from August 2005
Re: Demagicalizing pairs
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Damian Conway
Date:
August 23, 2005 23:59
Subject:
Re: Demagicalizing pairs
Message ID:
430C1337.6050708@conway.org
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 wherever we
like, why are we contemplating it?
> I suspect a lot of people would still prefer to write named args with =>,
I'd say so.
> so we should put some thought into making it syntactically trivial, if
> not automatic like it is now. Even making named() a listop would help.
I'd say that's the best alternative. I'd certainly prefer that to repurposing
:(...)
> I hate to say it, but the named args should probably be marked
> with : instead of + in the signature.
>
> One other idle thought is that, if we don't mind blowing a different
> kind of consistency, and if we s/+/:/ in sigs, a sig containing
> :$foo could instead be written $:foo (presuming we take : away from
> privates as we've postulated),
Yes please. Underscore is much better in that role.
Damian
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next