Re: Referencing a caller's slurpy array.

2005-03-20 Thread Rod Adams
Larry Wall wrote: On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 11:49:12PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote: : I haven't gotten a solid answer on when and how Perl will autogenerate : methods from subs. In general I don't think of it as autogeneration at all, but as failover to a different dispatcher. I can't think of a case

Re: Referencing a caller's slurpy array.

2005-03-17 Thread Larry Wall
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 11:49:12PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote: : I haven't gotten a solid answer on when and how Perl will autogenerate : methods from subs. In general I don't think of it as autogeneration at all, but as failover to a different dispatcher. I can't think of a case where an ordinary

Re: Referencing a caller's slurpy array.

2005-03-16 Thread Rod Adams
Luke Palmer wrote: Rod Adams writes: In S29, I currently have C as: multi sub grep (Any|Junction $test : [EMAIL PROTECTED]) returns List { gather { for @values -> $x { take $x if $x ~~ $test; } } } That's the listop form. I was referring to the method form: multi sub grep (

Re: Referencing a caller's slurpy array.

2005-03-16 Thread Luke Palmer
Rod Adams writes: > >Uhmm... isn't *&foo the adverbial block? That is, isn't it where grep > >gets its code block in: > > > > @list.grep:{ $_ % 2 } > > > > > > > In S29, I currently have C as: > > multi sub grep (Any|Junction $test : [EMAIL PROTECTED]) returns List { > gather { > for @va

Re: Referencing a caller's slurpy array.

2005-03-16 Thread Rod Adams
Luke Palmer wrote: Larry Wall writes: Certainly. The zone markers are as orthogonal to sigils as we can make 'em. Though I'm not sure we've given a meaning to *&foo yet. I suppose that would have to mean that the next slurpy parameter has to be a sub ref. Uhmm... isn't *&foo the adverbial

Re: Referencing a caller's slurpy array.

2005-03-16 Thread Larry Wall
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 11:53:43AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote: : Larry Wall writes: : > Certainly. The zone markers are as orthogonal to sigils as we can : > make 'em. Though I'm not sure we've given a meaning to *&foo yet. : > I suppose that would have to mean that the next slurpy parameter has :

Re: Referencing a caller's slurpy array.

2005-03-16 Thread Luke Palmer
Larry Wall writes: > Certainly. The zone markers are as orthogonal to sigils as we can > make 'em. Though I'm not sure we've given a meaning to *&foo yet. > I suppose that would have to mean that the next slurpy parameter has > to be a sub ref. Uhmm... isn't *&foo the adverbial block? That is,

Re: Referencing a caller's slurpy array.

2005-03-16 Thread Larry Wall
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:54:09AM -0600, Rod Adams wrote: : A06 says: : : If you |shift| or |pop| without an argument, it shifts or pops whatever : slurpy array is in scope. : : : Shall we assume that @_ is always an alias for this array, so I can say : something like: : : multi sub pop (Ar