Matthew Walton skribis 2005-02-05 16:20 (+0000): > Would this actually be any better than the interface provided by > Getopt::Long?
I'm not sure if it's *better*. I personally find it easier to read and much easier to remember. It would reduce the number of mini languages needed. Passing arguments is more or less the same thing, whether you pass them to a program or a subroutine, and this warrants more or less the same syntax - IMHO. > I suspect that it's possible, and I also suspect that > Getopt::Long can be written in a much friendlier manner for Perl 6 I'm sure it can: a macro would allow it to introduce lexicals instead of a hash or globals, without counter-intuitive rw arguments. > I do feel that command-line option parsing should not be built into the > language though Although I agree that it should not be part of the *language*, I do think it's important enough to consider supplying a standard module for. And since *practically*, standard modules do make the language, and because consistency in the standard distribution makes things much easier for everyone, I think now is not too early for this discussion. > Let modules take care of it, then we'll never have to worry about > pushing some built-in mechanism aside when we want to do something > peculiar. Agreed. Hence my question about being able to pass a signature as an argument to a macro. Juerd -- http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
