On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 03:48:55PM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
> Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This currently works in Pugs:
> >
> > for [1..10].pairs -> Pair $x { say $x.value }
> >
> > But this does not:
> >
> > for [1..10].pairs -> $x { say $x.value }
> >
> > Because the ruling that pairs must not be bound to parameters that are
> > not explicitly declared to handle them. Is this a desirable behaviour?
>
> How much violence would be done to the language if we declared that
> block (i.e. closure with no "sub" keyword) parameters defaulted to
> Item|Pair, while sub parameters defaulted to plain Item? I can't
> imagine named arguments are going to be used very often on blocks,
> which tend to be things like loop bodies...
If the Bare code object (including pointy and non-pointy) default their
parameter types to "Any" (that is, Item|Pair|Junction), then all of
these would work:
for [1..10].pairs { say(.value) }
for [1..10].pairs { say($^x.value) }
for [1..10].pairs -> $x { say($x.value) }
for 1|2, 3|4 { say(.values) }
for 1|2, 3|4 { say($^x.values) }
for 1|2, 3|4 -> $x { say($x.values) }
> Right now one of my biggest Perl 6 nits is that the combination of
> subroutines everywhere and the Pair type's special role in subroutine
> dispatch makes Pairs a real pain to work with. This would help to fix
> the problem without creating a new SuperPair type or something
> similarly silly.
Seconded.
Thanks,
/Autrijus/
pgpxMSflL0GBA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
