Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2017
Paul Evans wrote:
> Ah; in that case I guess the only real option is to allow :lvalue
> upfront, before the signature then.
>
> sub foo :lvalue ($self) { $self->{foo} }
Yes. I this is my (and Zefram's) preferred syntax, because it
stresses the fact that the signature is actually part of body, just
written shorthand.
I have never understood the objection that it 'looks right' the other
way. By what standard? We have a good reason here not simply to copy
C, because a Perl signature and a C signature are completely different
beasts. And if you want it to look like a sub call, well, it is *not*
a sub call, so why should it look the same? Also, sub calls never
have attributes, so it cannot look the same, whatever 'the same' would
be. I am probably arguing against a straw man here....
The vast majority of subs do not use attributes anyway, so it would
not make any difference to most users.
>
> I wonder, would that look better ordered
>
> sub :lvalue foo($self) { $self->{foo} }
>
> perhaps?
That is already a statement label (sub) followed by a call to lvalue()
with the return value of foo(), ...and then a syntax error.
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next