"Peter Haworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [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.
If currying magic works in subroutine parameter strings then you can
just do
sub assert_with_func (&^sub is constant, $^expected is constant,
$^got, $message)
{
&^sub($expected, $got) or die $message || $default_message;
}
Here's hoping it will work.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
