Perhaps it's better to think of '@' and '@@' as working with different
contexts. S02 says that there are three main contexts (void, scalar,
and list); that scalar context has a number of "sub-contexts"
(boolean, integer, number, and string), and that list context has a
number of sub-contexts base
Darren Duncan wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
>I see no mention of C<@@x> in this section. I would assume that
>C<@@x> may be bound to any object that does the C
>role, with a note to the effect that the C role does
>the C role (and thus anything that C<@x> may be bound to,
>C<@@x> may also be bound
At 4:00 PM -0700 5/23/07, Jonathan Lang wrote:
I see no mention of C<@@x> in this section. I would assume that
C<@@x> may be bound to any object that does the C
role, with a note to the effect that the C role does
the C role (and thus anything that C<@x> may be bound to,
C<@@x> may also be bound
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sigils indicate overall interface, not the exact type of the bound
+object. Different sigils imply different minimal abilities.
I see no mention of C<@@x> in this section. I would assume that
C<@@x> may be bound to any object that does the C
role, with a note to the
Author: larry
Date: Wed May 23 11:11:34 2007
New Revision: 14401
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
Clarifications suggested by Jonathan Lang++ and spinclad++.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
--- d
