develooper Front page | perl.perl6.language | Postings from May 2005

Re: foo(1: 2: 3: 4:) ?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Autrijus Tang
Date:
May 22, 2005 19:28
Subject:
Re: foo(1: 2: 3: 4:) ?
Message ID:
20050523022650.GA54691@aut.dyndns.org
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 11:07:59AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> >Hmm, I'm doubting that reflecting how many invocants you have on the
> >caller side is a good idea.  It seems awfully brittle in the face of
> >reimplementation.
> 
> Yep. And that's precisely why we previously ruled against colons in the 
> call syntax (apart from single-dispatch indirect object syntax, of course).

Err, wait.  From S06:

    # Indirect multimethod call...
    handle_event $w, $e: $m;

Is this single-dispatch?  If yes, what does "single-dispatch" really mean?  :)

Thanks,
/Autrijus/

Thread Previous | Thread Next


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