Re: binding arguments

2005-12-24 Thread Luke Palmer
On 12/25/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > foo( > named_arg := $value, > other_arg := $value, > ); I'll point out that Joe's argument is completely moot, because you're not using $s on the named arguments. As a matter of fact, we could double up the := symbol as both

Re: binding arguments

2005-12-24 Thread Juerd
Joe Gottman skribis 2005-12-24 19:59 (-0500): > sub foo($named_arg) {say $named_arg;} > my $named_arg = 1; > my $value = 2; > foo($named_arg := $value); #Does this bind my $named_arg to $value? Because the := is used in .(), it is not binding in the current scope, but in the called subroutine. In

Re: Multiple implementations of Perl 6

2005-12-24 Thread Larry Wall
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 11:25:43PM +1100, Andrew Savige wrote: : Apologies if I'm Mr Magoo, but I did a bit of a search on this just now, and : uncovered little more than a pithy quote from Piers Cawley in: : : http://dev.perl.org/perl6/list-summaries/2005/p6summary.2005-07-05.html : : asserting

RE: binding arguments

2005-12-24 Thread Joe Gottman
> -Original Message- > From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2005 7:26 PM > To: perl6-language@perl.org > Subject: binding arguments > > Merry Christmas to you all! > > We use => for pairs, but also for something very different: named > argument binding. Y

binding arguments

2005-12-24 Thread Juerd
Merry Christmas to you all! We use => for pairs, but also for something very different: named argument binding. Yes, pairs are used for that, but that introduces problems. The most important problem, that pairs sometimes have to be passed, and sometimes have to be named arguments, is fixed with a

Re: Multiple implementations of Perl 6

2005-12-24 Thread Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
On 12/24/05, Andrew Savige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm curious to know if the Perl 6 design team fully endorse a change from the > Perl 5 "the (single) implementation *is* the specification" model to a > "multiple implementations are good, m'kay, but from a single (detailed and > precise) spec

Multiple implementations of Perl 6

2005-12-24 Thread Andrew Savige
Apologies if I'm Mr Magoo, but I did a bit of a search on this just now, and uncovered little more than a pithy quote from Piers Cawley in: http://dev.perl.org/perl6/list-summaries/2005/p6summary.2005-07-05.html asserting that "Multiple implementations are good, m'kay". If anyone can point me to