[Apologies if you see this as a duplicate. I sent the original to perl6-all by mistake]
On Thu, 08 Nov 2001 11:10:43 +0000, Piers Cawley wrote:
> I keep coming back to the ruby/smalltalk
> block approach
>
> &assert_with_func := {
> | &^sub is constant, $^expected is constant, $^got, $message |
> &^sub($^expected, $^got, $message);
> };
>
> Note that the suggested syntax is merely a 'port' from Ruby. I've not
> really considered whether this syntax would fit well with perl. The
> first | is reasonably obvious, but I'm not sure we can reliably spot
> the closing one.
I remember fretting about the same thing when I wrote a Smalltalk parser,
and being surprised when it turned out not to be an issue. I think this was
due to the limited kinds of expressions Smalltalk allows, but it was over a
decade ago, and my memory may be faulty.
Anyway, couldn't you say this?
&assert_wth_func :=
sub(&^sub is constant, $^expected is constant, $^got, $message){
&^sub($^expected, $^got, $message);
};
I'm not sure if that still curries appropriately, though.
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
``Sarathy was concerned by the use of a "whole bit" for this task''
-- Simon Cozens
