On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 08:27:38 -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > Plus I still think it's a really bad idea to allow intermixing of > positionals and named. We could allow named at the beginning or end > but still keep a constraint that all positionals must occur together > in one zone.
This is something I think code style should take care of.
I would probably put all of my named "nouns" in the begining,
positional nouns after that, and named adjectives at the end,
because that's usually their order of importance for me.
If there is some really odd code signature which takes in a mess, I
may want to intermix positionals and named's in order to increase
readability.
In both these scenarios I see no use in the language limiting me
"just because"... I think this is a reiteration of the "I'm not
stupid, Perl should give me credit" issue.
> ...since another little niggly inconsistency is that we'd be marking
> named params with : on the call side but + on the receiving side.
> I hate to say it, but the named args should probably be marked
> with : instead of + in the signature.
I agree
> Not sure what that does to
> invocant colon though.
Invocant colon as a metaphor is nice for
method $object : ....;
But I think that kinda sucks for
new Dog; # uh, didn't you mean 'new Dog:;'?
And I personally never ever liked it in in signatures.
I would much rather see it go away, frankly, and let the issues be
resolved by simplifying the OOP system. *cough*, *cough*.
--
() Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0xEBD27418 perl hacker &
/\ kung foo master: uhm, no, I think I'll sit this one out..: neeyah!
pgpYO92WR49S5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
