On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 15:19:00 -0700, Peter Scott wrote: >>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? If you mean that you MUST use "sub", I object. If you mean that the "sub" may not be used, I agree. The whole thing with reminds me of FORTH's [ ... ] syntax, which temporarily stops compilation, and the code between the square brackets is executed instead of compiled. It maps directly to Perl's BEGIN { ... }. To me, it is not a sub that gets compiled and immedialy executed. OTOH, for END { ... }, you could say it is. The possibility of multiple BEGIN and END blocks do distinguish it from ordinary callback subs, though. -- Bart.
- Re: RFC 59 (v1) Proposal to utilize C<*> as... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 59 (v1) Proposal to utilize C<*>... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 59 (v1) Proposal to utilize C<... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 59 (v1) Proposal to utilize C<... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 59 (v1) Proposal to utilize C... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 59 (v1) Proposal to util... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 59 (v1) Proposal to ... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 59 (v1) Proposal to ... John Porter
- Re: RFC 59 (v1) Proposal to ... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 59 (v1) Proposal to ... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 59 (v1) Proposal to util... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 59 (v1) Proposal to ... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 59 (v1) Proposal to utilize C<*> as the ... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 59 (v1) Proposal to utilize C<*> as... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 59 (v1) Proposal to utilize C<*>... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 59 (v1) Proposal to utilize C<*> as the ... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 59 (v1) Proposal to utilize C<*> as... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 59 (v1) Proposal to utilize C<*> as the ... skud
- RE: RFC 59 (v1) Proposal to utilize C<*> as the ... Brust, Corwin