Uri writes:
> DC> One might also envisage a C<use strict 'typing'> pragma to require
> DC> that all lexicals be typed.
>
> do you mean lexical params in a sub signature? or all lexicals in the
> current scope which contains the pragma?
any(@above).
Some people will want one; some, the other. We may need two pragmas. ;-)
> required typing for all lexicals feels too strong. many lexicals are
> just ordinary scalars and don't type well unless we require an
> int/string/float/ref type.
Yep. But people want static type-checking and that's the only reasonable
way to get it.
> what about making that mean that any scalar being assigned a method call
> (compile time checked only), must have a type? it would not be too broad
> and should be simple to check and it has useful behavior.
It should probably extend to any variable used as a subroutine/method argument,
but it's a good idea.
Damian
