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

Re: sub signatures - too few arguments

Thread Previous
From:
Peter Martini
Date:
October 27, 2012 17:03
Subject:
Re: sub signatures - too few arguments
Message ID:
CAFyW6MRwNMjto6dyy0AALdu=knbu8nJN_NspF=AKpZaF4dr8Pg@mail.gmail.com
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@gmx.de>wrote:

> * Peter Martini <petercmartini@gmail.com> [2012-10-28 01:25]:
> > I'm not quite ready to get into optional arguments yet, just pointing
> > out that the strict vs lax debate can (will?) have repercussions so we
> > don't block our path forward.
>
> I think full strictness for now and telling people to use non-signature
> subs if they need to default their arguments based on existence is fine
> for the very first iteration.
>

It's clear I need to go to full strictness anyway :-)  My concerns at this
point are: do we want to separate the overflow and underflow strictness
checks, and can we allow the caller to disable one or both of them?


> Optional arguments will come up very quickly though. So they cannot
> honestly be punted on for long, which I am wary about.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
>

I get the sense there won't be *too* much disagreement over optional
arguments, so that'll be the first order of business after the basic
signatures are sorted out.  sub foo($bar, $baz = 5) {} seems like a clear
winner, but the boundaries need to be explored further, and that's where
I'm trying not to get distracted yet.

We've got about 3 months left til contentions code freeze for 5.18, which
is something I'm keeping track of.

Thread Previous


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