[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Larry revealed:
:
: > : method bar($me : *@_) {
: > : ...
: > : }
: > :
: > : will use $me instead.
: >
: > That is the approach I currently favor. (Though I'd probably leave
: > out the space in front of the colon.) And it has the advantage that
: > $me is automatically assumed to be read only.
:
:
: Okay, so let's clarify:
:
: 1. If you declare a method *with* a colon separator in its parameter
: list:
:
: method foo ($self: $foosrc, $foodest, $etc) {...}
:
: then the parameter before the colon is bound to the invocant,
: and the parameters after the colon are bound to the other
: args of the method call.
:
:
: 2. If you declare a method *without* a colon separator in its
: parameter list:
:
: method foo ($foosrc, $foodest, $etc) {...}
:
: then the parameters are bound to the non-invocant
: args of the method call and the invocant itself is
: inaccessible (except implicitly through the unary dot
: operator).
:
:
: 3. If you declare a method *without* any parameter list:
:
: method foo {...}
:
: then the method call arguments (including the invocant?)
: are bound to @_.
:
:
: Is that correct?
It's what I'm thinking. I have no idea if it's correct.
Larry
