develooper Front page | perl.perl6.language | Postings from March 2009

routine arrow syntax and return/of types

Thread Next
Darren Duncan
March 19, 2009 14:18
routine arrow syntax and return/of types
Message ID:
I have a question and a request.

In it says:

   The general syntax for named subroutines is any of:

      my RETTYPE sub NAME ( PARAMS ) TRAITS {...}    # lexical only
     our RETTYPE sub NAME ( PARAMS ) TRAITS {...}    # also package-scoped
                 sub NAME ( PARAMS ) TRAITS {...}    # same as "our"

   The return type may also be put inside the parentheses:

     sub NAME (PARAMS --> RETTYPE) {...}

In there is a distinguishing 
between 'of' and 'returns', such that 'of' is part of the external routine 
signature and 'returns' is just an internal constraint.

Now first of all I wanted to ask/clarify, are all of the above forms, the 
"RETTYPE sub" and "--> RETTYPE", equivalent to the "of" trait, meaning they are 
part of the external signature, and that none are like "returns" being internal 
to the routine only?  That's how I hope it is.

Second, since the "sub NAME (PARAMS --> RETTYPE) {...}" form looks nice 
visually, I would like to request a variant of that form, that flips the arrow:

   sub NAME (RETTYPE <-- PARAMS) {...}

I ask because I like to declare my result type before my parameters, since the 
declaration then reads in the same order as corresponding invocation items, as 
well as having the shorter and more important declaration appearing first 
(result type vs parameters):

   my $result = myfunc( $arg1, $arg2 );

And at the same time it has the visually distinctive arrow syntax which is very 
easy to read.

While "RETTYPE sub" and "of RETTYPE" provides the first advantage, it doesn't 
provide the second.

Also providing both versions gives symmetry in the way that you have both of the 
<== and ==> feed operators so users can order operations visually as per their 

I also don't believe you are already using <-- for anything so it is free.

And I don't believe that there should be any problem incorporating this option 
given the other issues like named invocants or longname parameters; you just 
keep those with PARAMS as you did before, putting the lot on the right side of 
the <--.

Note that this request is only useful to me if the existing --> means 'of' and 
not 'returns'.

Thank you in advance for considering this request.

-- Darren Duncan

Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About