Re: RFC 107 (v1) lvalue subs should receive the rvalue as an argument

[Nathan Torkington]

Nathan Wiger writes:
> > So the proposal is: make the dangerous one the default.
> > I don't think that's a good idea.
> 
> You're going to have to explain to me how these differ in their
> dangerousness:

Nathan, you misunderstand Damian.  What's dangerous is making every
subroutine lvaluable.  He's all for making lvaluable subroutines work
intelligently is one thing.  He thinks it's not a good idea to make
all subs lvaluable.

Not every subroutine corresponds to a method call exposing
object-internal data.  Most of my subroutines *do* something and make
no sense to be called lvaluably.  Explicit marking the compiler pick
up assignments to non-lvaluable subroutines.  It makes sense to
explicitly mark the rare cases (:lvalue), rather than the common
(:no_assignment).

Nat