Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2015
* Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> [2015-02-24 18:45]: > * Zefram <zefram@fysh.org> [2015-02-24T12:37:26] > > That the signature is part of the body is not an implementation > > detail, it is fundamental to the definition of signatures. > > As far as the programmer who is writing a subroutine with a signature > is concerned, how is this relevant, let alone fundamental? There is exactly one actual point of relevance: forward declarations. You can’t put a signature on one of those. At least, last we discussed what to do, there was a can of worms in the question of what each combination of absence vs presence of a signature in the forward declaration vs the actual sub could mean, particularly in light of pre-existing code. It was this consideration that made me think and argue, at that time, that signatures ought to come after attributes. In retrospect, that just violates expectation – even my own! – too much. So this point of contradiction will require some other resolution. And maybe it’ll be ugly, with special-casey behaviour instead of a nice, coherent inner logic, but I now believe that price has to be paid. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/> Gruß,Thread Previous | Thread Next