Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2012
On Wednesday July 4 2012 1:27:27 PM Chris Nehren wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 17:54:40 +0200 , demerphq wrote:
> > On 4 July 2012 06:58, Chris Nehren <c.nehren/p5p@shadowcat.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Recently I've been working on a DSL of sorts that would be more
> > > succinctly expressed if I could have a prototype like ($&&). What would
> > > break if we allowed the & prototype after the first position? To make
> > > the proposed feature concrete, it would enable us to have syntax like
> > > (courtesy of LeoNerd):
> > >
> > > generic_sort { $a <=> $b } { length $_ } @strings;
> > >
> > > or (from my own code):
> > >
> > > loop host 'shadowcat' => { do_stuff; };
> > >
> > > I'm fine with doing the work to add this feature. I would just like to
> > > be sure I don't break half of CPAN with my efforts.
> > >
> > > Thoughts? Comments? Rallying praise? Rotten tomatoes?
> >
> > How is the interpreter to know that those arent hashes?
> >
> > Yves
>
> Because I asked it to with a (&&) or ($&) prototype.
sub do_stuff($;&); # implementation not important, I think.
my %foo;
my $foo;
do_stuff $foo { 'something here' };
Now, is that passing in $foo as the first parameter and a code ref that returns
a static string as the second, or passing in a value contained in %foo as that
first parameter, and no code ref?
Don't get me wrong, I've wanted to be able to put & somewhere other than the
first parameter on many occassions. But first the syntax has to not surprise
the reader[0], and we use enough squiggles already for so many different
purposes, especially the braces, so a bit of care might be required.
[0] Surprise with new syntax is fine. Surprise with something that could be
one of multiple syntaxes, probably not so much.
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next