Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2012
Jesse Luehrs suggested:
> So maybe what we really want is to move that case down below the "Any ->
> Code" case.
I don't think so. If overloading is tested first, then the overloading
itself can implement
a fallback to the standard Any ~~ CodeRef case.
If Any ~~ CodeRef is tested first, then new classes have no way to
intercept and
control that behaviour sensibly for their objects.
In fact, I would argue that the overloading case should come *first*
in the table,
even before the Any ~~ undef case, so that classes overloading smartmatch can
intercept and handle that case too.
> If $b is a coderef, I'd expect it to be called with the junction,
> rather than calling the ~~ overload on the left hand side.
So what if I want *correct* junctive behaviour in that case: namely that
each element of the junction is distributed over a separate call to the sub
and the results are rejunctified.
You're proposing that:
any(9,10,11) ~~ \&is_prime
be equivalent to:
is_prime(any(9,10,11))
but what if I want it to mean what it's supposed to mean:
any(is_prime(9), is_prime(10), is_prime(11))
If overload testing comes first, I can implement the Junction class's
overloading to do that. If CodeRef testing comes first, I'm screwed.
Damian
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next