In the case of the Algorithm::Dependency module that is being ported over as a test, and given that larger chunks of code have a tendency towards named iterators in loops anyways, and we've ended up with the only sane way to be the wordiest of the various ways-to-do-it.
Just for the record, I for one would have much preferred to have .foo be the same as $.foo and @.foo and %.foo and refer to the invocant method, at the cost of using C< map { $_.foo } >.
To describe it in emotional terms, the current situation feels "backwards and inside out".
Adam K
Michael G Schwern wrote:
There's a discussion going on #perl6/irc.freenode.org right now wondering
about what .method means. We'd all assumed it meant $self.method (where
$self is always the method invocant) but then had a look at Synopsis 12 which states
Dot notation can omit the invocant if it's in $_:
.doit(1,2,3)
This seems to cripple .method's usefulness by coupling it to $_ which
can change often. Now in order to be safe for anything but trivial methods you're back to writing out $self all over the place, something that Perl 6 was supposed to fix about Perl 5.
It has also been pointed out that .foo, $.foo, @.foo and %.foo are all (intentionally) similar and all but one operates on the invocant. Only .foo operates on $_. This seems like a newbie trap waiting to happen. MOST of the time .foo will work like $self.foo but every once in a while they'll get caught in a gotcha.
Thoughts?
