On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 04:25:29PM -0600, Allison Randal wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 12:35:29PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > : What would the default-variable scheme do in this context?
> >
> > That's a problem. But a more basic problem is, what would a C
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 12:35:29PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> : What would the default-variable scheme do in this context?
>
> That's a problem. But a more basic problem is, what would a C do?
My guess was that it would behave as if handed a list. So:
for @foo -
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 10:07:12AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> It's been thought about, but neither accepted nor rejected yet. It's
> one of those things that depends on future decisions. Certainly Hugo
> and Dan will vouch for the fact that I was ruminating about similar
> issues last Wednesd
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: The obvious extension to given is given , as:
It's not obvious to me that you'd want more than one topic at a time.
And there's much to be said for defining C as a C that
provides a scalar context rather than a list context.
: given $foo -> $bar is rw,# I think t
The obvious extension to given is given , as:
given $foo -> $bar is rw,# I think this is more readable
$moo -> $baz is rw
{
...
}
or
given ($foo, $moo) -> ($bar is rw, $baz)
{
...
}
What would the default-variable scheme do in this context?
(Please, no-one suggest nesting 5 or
Allison Randal writes:
: Of course, this idea may have already been considered and rejected, in
: which case I'm just curious to learn the reasons.
It's been thought about, but neither accepted nor rejected yet. It's
one of those things that depends on future decisions. Certainly Hugo
and Dan w
Of course, this idea may have already been considered and rejected, in
which case I'm just curious to learn the reasons.
What would be the cost (performance, design or dwim) of making all the
defaulting constructs pay attention to the current topicalizer in
preference to $_?
C is beautifully dwi
