On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 15:43:29 -0500, James Mastros wrote: >The $__ option seems a lot better to me, because there's no syntatical >reason against self-reference. ($^R for return might be a better name -- >unless we've already used that for somthing else. Nope.) What do you mean, "nope"? It *is* in use. The (?{...}) embed-perl-code-in-a-regex feature sets it. With a return value. Hah. BTW I think the whole idea is bad. I like "return FOO". Neat and simple. At least it's independent of the sub's name. I wish this could be extended to doing recursive calls without having to say the subs own name, again. -- Bart.
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &q... David L. Nicol
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &q... James Mastros
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &q... John Porter
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &q... David L. Nicol
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &q... abigail
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &q... James Mastros
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead ... David L. Nicol
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &q... Johan Vromans
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &q... James Mastros
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &q... Bart Lateur
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &q... Branden
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &q... Simon Cozens
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &q... John Porter
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &q... James Mastros
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &q... Simon Cozens
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &q... James Mastros
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &q... John Porter