develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from January 2012

Re: [perl #109132] sub foo(_@)

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Eric Brine
Date:
January 26, 2012 19:18
Subject:
Re: [perl #109132] sub foo(_@)
Message ID:
CALJW-qEpGoVXYHR3QtOf9c9aZRwZyLyhhDXh-npTUbafwrPV_g@mail.gmail.com
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Father Chrysostomos via RT <
perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote:

> > I don't see why "and 0 or more arguments" is treated differently than
> > "and optionally 0 or more arguments".
>
> If we allow _@, then it becomes more complicated to explain why _$ is
> not allowed.
>

Then what if _@ and _% suggested using _;@ and _;%?

Earlier, I tried to use _@, got an error, and abandoned support for lexical
$_ by not using prototypes. I never tried _;@. If this code hadn't been
public code, I would never have known that I could use _;@. (Thus this bug
report.)

- Eric

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About