Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2022
Re: PSC #049 2022-01-07
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
demerphq
Date:
January 16, 2022 07:01
Subject:
Re: PSC #049 2022-01-07
Message ID:
CANgJU+WCjS0Lmdnd0kSFN3_4qDRdCd2mCNV2WiWYBgkn_FKJ8w@mail.gmail.com
On Sun, 16 Jan 2022 at 03:46, Darren Duncan <darren@darrenduncan.net> wrote:
> On 2022-01-15 4:43 p.m., Ricardo Signes wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 15, 2022, at 6:02 PM, Yuki Kimoto wrote:
> >> Is it possible to include an arity check discussion?
> >>
> >> The arity check discussion seems to be ignored.
> >
> > http://markmail.org/message/e7lvyan2ctd24cun
> >
> > *This topic has been discussed numerous times over the last seven years,
> and I'm
> > not going through it again. This will be my last reply to any message
> on the
> > topic of changing the strict arity checking of subroutine signatures.**
> > *
>
> I for one also support keeping the existing strict arity checking in place
> for
> signatures.
>
> If one is using signatures then that usually implies that the arguments
> they
> explicitly declare are the arguments they expect and that someone calling
> it in
> any other way is making an error.
>
> When a routine writer wants to allow a variable number of arguments, there
> is a
> means provided to declare that explicitly in signatures.
>
> And otherwise routine writers who want the old-style least strict behavior
> can
> still get it for a sub by not using signatures and using @_ instead.
>
+1
Yves
--
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next