> > my sub foo ($_ = $_)
> >
> > to just propagate the outer $_ inward.
>
> That only works when $_ can somehow be
> shoe-horned into the parameter list.
> Whereas:
>
> my sub foo is given($_)
>
> works for *any* parameter list.
Other than the placeholder situation, I
don't understand when one could do the
'is given($_)' and not do the ($_ = $_).
> > Possibly we have something more evil than
> > that, such as the notion that $? is a double
> > sigil that pulls a name out of the dynamic
> > context's lexical scope.
>
> 1. Do we really want to allow every lexical to
> be accessible anywhere in its dynamic scope?
It is intriguing.
One only needs to know the def of a sub one is
calling. One does not have to worry about subs
that get called by the sub one is calling. Imo
one should know the def of a sub one calls. In
this case one needs to know the pertinent arg
/names/, not just their position, but that is
already somewhat the case for optional args.
When writing in the, er, medium (as against
small or large), one could develop a variable
name vocabulary, rather as one does with
globals, but without its dangers:
A (horrible, but hopefully illustrative)
example:
my $filename = 'foobar';
my $buf;
open;
read;
write;
delete;
I'm imagining a potential sweetspot between
globals and lexicals. An extension of the
power of "it", which is just a way to talk
more succinctly when you can get away with
assumptions about nearby nouns. No?
> 2. If we *do* want to provide that mechanism,
> do we really want to make it that easy/subtle
If the sweetspot I theorize above exists,
then I think my answer is 'yes' to easy.
But, no matter what, NO to subtle. It would
be important that people know that any given
arg is, er, given, or one just ends up with
something that is halfway to the usual global
problem.
I'm thinking the syntax should be, in order
of priority, LOUD, short, pleasing.
I'm also thinking it would be nice to be able
to say that the called sub's lexical shares its
name as well as value (copy or bound) with the
calling sub's lexical, without having to say
the name twice. Further, that this would be a
good pick as the norm, with the syntax optimized
for that, so that it may be more cumbersome when
you want the formal and actual arg names to be
different.
Perhaps we need some Unicode? ;>
--
ralph
