Re: foo(1: 2: 3: 4:) ?

[Damian Conway]

Luke wrote:

   foo($a : $b : $c)
   foo($a : $b : $c : )
 
Hmm, I'm doubting that reflecting how many invocants you have on the
caller side is a good idea.  It seems awfully brittle in the face of
reimplementation.

Yep. And that's precisely why we previously ruled against colons in the call 
syntax (apart from single-dispatch indirect object syntax, of course).

Damian