Larry Wall wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 06:31:49PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> : I wonder if this notion of contextualizing a method's signature could
> : be generalized... I could see a case for treating most methods as if
> : the expressions in each parameter were being evaluated within the
> : caller's class:
> :
> : scratch $jack: .back
> :
> : would be equivalent to
> :
> : $jack.scratch($jack.back)
>
> But wouldn't that mean Jack scratching my back instead of his?
> I think we'd have people losing track of the current topic all the
> time if we did something like that.
Would we? It seems obvious to me that once you specify a subject, all
possessive objects that follow are considered to be possessed by that
subject; read the dot in the shorthand as "his", "her", "its", "their", or
"your", as appropriate:
$spot.chase .tail;
would be
"Spot: chase your tail."
This is the same way that dots operate within a method's body.
> I think we just need something really short and unconfusing for the
> commonest cases, and let people write it out longhand for the others.
> Somebody needs to talk me out of using A..Z for the simple cases.
How is A..Z different from
(A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z)?
=====
Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
