On Fri, 2004-04-23 at 19:52, Damian Conway wrote:
> Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > Now, I know that the Apoc on modules has not been written, and by that
> > time Larry will have thought of this, but I thought I'd point out that
> > some mechanism will have to exist in modules to indicate not only that
On Fri, 2004-04-23 at 20:51, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 09:52:12AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> : My proposal for that issue is just:
> :
> : module Bar;
> :
> : use Foo «foo»;
> :
> : sub foo is export {...}
>
> That's on the right track, but has some difficulties
> "DC" == Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DC> I don't see why. Import to- and export from- a module could (and
DC> probably should) be entirely orthogonal. So perhaps exportation should
DC> be via mixin:
DC> use Foo «foo $foocount», our &bar;
DC> &foo doe
Uri Guttman asked:
how would you handle %EXPORT_TAGS and @EXPORT_OK?
Export-only-by-request (i.e. @EXPORT_OK) becomes the default.
The tag names become arguments to C:
sub foo is export(:BAR, :FOOLISH) {...} # Now in two named tagsets
Every exportable is automatically also in the :ALL tagset
Larry wrote:
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 09:52:12AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
: My proposal for that issue is just:
:
: module Bar;
:
: use Foo «foo»;
:
: sub foo is export {...}
That's on the right track, but has some difficulties, insofar as it's
not clear that the intent is to redefine "fo
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 09:52:12AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
: My proposal for that issue is just:
:
: module Bar;
:
: use Foo «foo»;
:
: sub foo is export {...}
That's on the right track, but has some difficulties, insofar as it's
not clear that the intent is to redefine "f
Aaron Sherman wrote:
At the end of A12, "Exportation" covered the idea that you will now say:
sub foo() is export {...}
Rather than the P5:
@EXPORT=qw(foo);
sub foo;
Which is fine, except that in P5 we could say:
use Foo qw(foo);
@EXPORT=qw(foo);
Now, I know th
Exporation?! And I sent one to p6i about "missint math ops" boy,
this is not my day :-(
But still, you get the idea, I hope ;-)
--
Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Senior Systems Engineer and Toolsmith
"It's the sound of a satellite saying, 'get me down!'" -Shriekback
At the end of A12, "Exportation" covered the idea that you will now say:
sub foo() is export {...}
Rather than the P5:
@EXPORT=qw(foo);
sub foo;
Which is fine, except that in P5 we could say:
use Foo qw(foo);
@EXPORT=qw(foo);
Now, I know that the Apoc o
