Re: RFC 59 (v1) Proposal to utilize C<*> as the prefix t

[Piers Cawley]

Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> At 12:07 AM 8/8/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> >On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 10:56:40 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> >
> > >I meant that BEGIN, END, and INIT aren't declared as subs at present but
> > >named blocks.  I was surprised to discover that they're put in the symbol
> > >table anyway though.
> >
> >Check the docs again. [snip]
> >     Four special subroutines act as package constructors and
> >     destructors. These are the `BEGIN', `CHECK', `INIT', and `END'
> >     routines. The `sub' is optional for these routines.
> 
> Drat.  I propose making it non-optional for P6.  ETOOMANYSPECIALCASES.  Any 
> objections?

But what happens if you want multiple BEGIN blocks?

-- 
Piers