Trey Harris wrote:
Might I propose the following normalization:
1. .call, method definition call(), and .wrap call all take captures.
2. .call() and both types of call() all pass on the arguments of the
current subroutine.
> 3. To call with no arguments, use .call(\()) and call(\()).
I have no problem with that, but the original form should probably exist
too. I don't know if that's called invoke or what, but something that
takes an arglist and constructs the capture to pass on would be very
helpful to most users.
4. Introduce some syntax for getting a capture of the current argument
list explicitly. Perhaps $?ARGS or $?_ or $?CAPTURE. One shouldn't
have to choose between repeating your 20 parameters in order to take a
capture of them, and eliminating your nice self-documenting 20
parameter names so you can use the easy \$arglist trick.
I like the idea in 4, even though I'm not sure that I follow the rest of
your logic. Having access to a variable that contains the current
argument list called $?ARGS seems to be in line with the rest of the $?
state variables that are provided.
So, in general, I think the only thing missing is something like invoke
so that:
invoke(1,2,3);
is identical to:
call(\(1,2,3));
and:
invoke([,] =$?ARGS);
is identical to:
call($?ARGS);
is identical to:
call();
Certainly a distinction on call vs call() is not what Perl 6 programmers
will come to expect from the rest of the language, and I see no pressing
reason to introduce it here.
