Re: \(...)?
Hi,
Larry Wall wrote:
> The only questions in my mind are whether Perl 5's \($a,$b) is
> what people expect (it's arguably counterintuitive to newbies),
> and whether there's some other construct that would more naturally
> construct a list of references. It's not just \« though, since it
> has to *parse* as a list of lvalues. Maybe a siglet can degenerate to
> that, but there are problems with that approach too. Unless someone
> can come up with a better proposal, \($a,$b) is the default winner
> on the basis of prior Perl 5 art.
So...:
[EMAIL PROTECTED];# Ref to array
\(@array); # List of refs to @array's elements, i.e. same as
map { \$_ } @array;
# Weird (violating the "parens are only for grouping" rule), but
# consistent with Perl 5.
Correct?
--Ingo
--
Linux, the choice of a GNU | Row, row, row your bits, gently down the
generation on a dual AMD | stream...
Athlon!|
Re: no 6;
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 08:29:00PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: > It's not valid perl 4: > > $ perl4 -e 'no 5; print "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"' > syntax error in file /tmp/perl-em47tij at line 1, next 2 tokens "no 5" > Execution of /tmp/perl-em47tij aborted due to compilation errors. $ perl1 -e 'no 4; print "Happy New Year, 1988!\n"' syntax error in file /tmp/perl-eE52cHQ at line 1, next token "string" Execution aborted due to compilation errors. -- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern Insulting our readers is part of our business model. http://somethingpositive.net/sp07122005.shtml
Re: Regarding Roles and $?ROLE
> From: Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>On 9/11/05, Stevan Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hello all.
>>
>> I have some questions about how Roles will behave in certain
>> instances, and when/where/what $?ROLE should be bound too.
>>
>> 1) Given this example, where 'bar' is a method stub (no implementation)
>>
>> role Foo {
>> method bar { ... }
>> }
>>
>> Should the eventually implemented method still have a binding for $?
>> ROLE?
>
>The way you're referring to $?ROLE here sounds kind of akin to asking
>*the* type (not class) of a particular object. That is, you're asking
>the compiler for the answer to a question that doesn't make any sense.
I do not see $?ROLE as refering to the type of the object, I would think we
should use
does() for that. I see $?ROLE as being like $?SELF and $?CLASS in that it is
just a
pseudo-lexical which is only bound in certain situtions (inside a method
defintion,
inside a class definition, etc). It seems to me that $?ROLE should be bound
within a Role
defintion as well, and this of course means it is defined within role methods
as well.
However, method stubs are a grey area. The stub is defined within the Role, and
so a
part of the Role, but the eventual method defintion is done by the consuming
class,
which is not part of the Role.
Honestly, my vote is for no. I think $?ROLE only really makes sense within the
context of
the Role, and I am not really sure I see much use for it outside of this anyway.
Stevan
