HaloO, Larry Wall wrote: > : ::Takes3Ints ::= :(Int,Int,Int --> Any); > : > : my &foo:(Takes3Ints); > > I'd say that has to be something like: > > my &foo:(Takes3Ints:); > > or maybe one of > > my &foo:(Takes3Ints \!); > my &foo:(\Takes3Ints); > my &foo\(Takes3Ints); > > since Takes3Ints is the implementation and/or arglist type.
Sorry, you lost me. Why is there a invocant colon in the first example, and what exactly does the ref indicator mean in all the three different alternatives? > Otherwise how do you distinguish > > my &foo:(Takes3Ints); > my &foo:(Int, Int, Int); You mean the latter &foo as non-code, simple 3-tuple type? Otherwise I would think the & sigil implies the optional default &:( --> Any). But than again I haven't fully grasped your notion of the pure type name before the first colon. > The colon would still be required in an rvalue context. But the extension > of that to subs seems to be: > > my &sub(Sub: \$args) > > Hmm, does that mean that a method actually looks like this? > > my &meth(Method: $self: \$args) I have ranted that I see method invocation as a two step call with a covariant dispatch first and then a normal contravariant call with argument type check, but why the second colon? And why the first on &sub(Sub: \$args)? Just to name the intended code subtype? --
