> I think conflating:
> foo(@vals)
> and
> foo() = @vals
>
> is misleading and going to cause more confusion that it solves.
In simple cases, yes. The above looks misleading. Advanced stuff like
chaining though would be really cool. I could come up with oodles of
examples. :-)
> What kinds of problems can you possibly have with my()?
You'd think that, eh? Not understanding what lexical scope means, where
the nearest block is, thinking that my() is per-package, etc, etc,
etc...
> No, you work with what you have. Modules, like Perl, don't have to
> be all things to all people. This idea that it "ought to work" is
> what's broken.
Sorry, I've done *way* too much work with user-interface research and
design to agree to an RTFM argument. This doesn't work for me. Not for
something as "simple" as assignment. Function names, DB interfaces, yes.
"=" (which is all people will see), no.
> * Andy's RFC on lvalue subs getting the rvalue as arguments reworked
> to account for the possibility of multiple rvalues.
This sounds great to me.
I'm not trying to create a commotion. I'm just trying to contribute some
different (what I feel to be useful) angles to this discussion. Most
everyone on this list is an expert. Most Perl users aren't. Something
like this should "just work", consistently. Just like all other forms of
assignment.
-Nate
