Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from August 2005
Re: Demagicalizing pairs
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
John Williams
Date:
August 24, 2005 09:11
Subject:
Re: Demagicalizing pairs
Message ID:
Pine.LNX.4.33.0508240956130.19392-100000@sharkey.morinda.com
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 magic from =>'d pairs isn't buying us named args wherever we
> like, why are we contemplating it?
I've lost track of the score in this thread, but I thought I would throw
a couple pennies into the fountain.
I really dread the thought of losing C< name => value > for named
parameters. Off the top of my head, ADA, PL/SQL, and php all use that
syntax, so it would be a shame to lose something that newbies might find
familiar.
On the other hand I would like it if the adverbial named parameter
style C< :name(value) > were allowed at the begining as well as the end of
the parameter list. I think adverbs read better when they are next to the
verbs they modify, and I would be nice if I didn't have to resort to macro
magic to get them there.
Mixing named and positionals is bad though.
~ John Williams
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next