> For a typed subroutine with named parameters, is the declaration syntax
> (sans property declaration) going to be:
>
> 'sub' type ident '(' paramlist ')' block
>
> (in, say, Parse::RecDescent)? I'm thinking about how to add subroutines
> to BabyPerl*, and I need to know if I'm at least right about the
> placement of 'type'.
Larry hasn't said, but it's a pretty good bet it will be like that.
(Though I *do* harbour a secret desire to resurrect -> as a type specifier:
sub foo (@args) -> rettype
{
...
}
my $bar -> int;
#etc.
;-)
Damian
