On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:09:46PM -0000, Father Chrysostomos wrote: > Dave Mitchell wrote: > > I think it would be awkward if we we were both working on sig code at the > > same time. Perhaps I should do the \@y work? Is this agreed upon syntax? > > It there a thread I can peruse for the details? > > I assume its just a case of the parser flagging an OP_ARGELEM > > (with OPf_REF perhaps), and then for pp_argelem to store SvRV(rhs) > > in the pad slot, while croaking if the RHS isn't of the right type? > > The ticket is #128242, but it is not very focused and has loose ends. > > I had already implemented it before reading this. I have just pushed > the sprout/sigwack branch. It only implements the agreed-upon behav- > iour, which allows only refs for the arguments. The other sugges- > tions, which were not really agreed upon, I have left undone. > > I do not mind resolving conflicts after you merge your first sig > branch into blead. But if you want to do it instead (or rewrite it), > that is fine. I've just pushed smoke-me/davem/sub_argsB4, which is sub_argsB3 with extra commits that should address the issues you raised in this thread. Once that's merged, I'll review your sigwack branch and merge/modify it as appropriate. -- Spock (or Data) is fired from his high-ranking position for not being able to understand the most basic nuances of about one in three sentences that anyone says to him. -- Things That Never Happen in "Star Trek" #19Thread Previous | Thread Next