Yes, subroutine variables *are* like underwear.
But parameter names *aren't* like underwear.
Because they're not (primarily) subroutine variables.
So they're like the labels on the knobs, dials, and buttons of your favourite
elctronic device. They're part of the *interface*, not (primarily) part
> One of the features I like about Eiffel is what Meyer calls the Uniform
> Access principle...It sounds as though Perl 6 is heading towards supporting
> this. Have we actually got there?
That's the intention, yes.
The details still need to be nutted out, but it seems very likely that if you
w
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 05:07:37PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Of course, one of the big reasons we went with $self was the pun:
>
> my $self = shift;
>
> which we won't have now. Unless we always hide the invocant and
> force you to say
>
> my $self = invocant;
>
> or some such mummer
At 5:26 PM -0700 4/13/02, Larry Wall wrote:
>Well, Perl 5 doesn't really support compact arrays of known size, and
>those are the only kind that are easy to think about when it comes to
>vectorization.
Actually, I can think of other possibilities. For instance, aren't
some string operations (e.g
