Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The point of an lvalue subroutine is not to make assignment to the > return value work, it is to make the return value an *lvalue*. > That's a much more general thing, because it allows every other type > of modification to work too. Exactly! -- Johan
- Re: RFC 118 (v1) lvalue subs: parameter... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 118 (v1) lvalue subs: parameter... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 118 (v1) lvalue subs: parameter... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 118 (v1) lvalue subs: parameter... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 118 (v1) lvalue subs: parameter... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 118 (v1) lvalue subs: parameter... Hildo Biersma
- Re: RFC 118 (v1) lvalue subs: parameter... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 118 (v1) lvalue subs: parameters, explicit ... Buddha Buck
- Merge RFC's 107 and 118 (was Re: RFC 118 (v1) l... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 118 (v1) lvalue subs: parameters, explicit assig... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 118 (v1) lvalue subs: parameters, explicit ... Johan Vromans
- Re: RFC 118 (v1) lvalue subs: parameters, explicit ... Buddha Buck
- Re: RFC 118 (v1) lvalue subs: parameters, explicit ... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 118 (v1) lvalue subs: parameters, explicit ... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 118 (v1) lvalue subs: parameters, expli... David L. Nicol
- Re: RFC 118 (v1) lvalue subs: parameters, explicit ... Damian Conway