Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2012
On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 12:23 -0600, Darin McBride wrote:
> sub do_stuff($;&); # implementation not important, I think.
>
> my %foo;
> my $foo;
> do_stuff $foo { 'something here' };
>
> Now, is that passing in $foo as the first parameter and a code ref that returns
> a static string as the second, or passing in a value contained in %foo as that
> first parameter, and no code ref?
>
> Don't get me wrong, I've wanted to be able to put & somewhere other than the
> first parameter on many occassions. But first the syntax has to not surprise
> the reader[0], and we use enough squiggles already for so many different
> purposes, especially the braces, so a bit of care might be required.
>
> [0] Surprise with new syntax is fine. Surprise with something that could be
> one of multiple syntaxes, probably not so much.
I'm not sure you'd even need to make it optional, since perl would have
to decide if the '{' belongs to the '$foo' and is a hash access or is a
whole new argument.
However, only '&' prototypes seem to not require a comma afterwards, so
shouldn't the above always parse as hash access? I'd assume the code for
the above prototype would be
do_stuff $foo, { 'something here' };
Or am I missing something?
regards,
Robert
--
Robert 'phaylon' Sedlacek
Perl 5 Consultant for
Shadowcat Systems Limited - http://shadowcat.co.uk/
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next