Austin Hastings wrote:
> It has been pointed out once already that we already talked about this,
> and I for one am in favor of the general version of it.
>
> The original discussion posited an "adverbial comparison", viz:
> C<$a eq:ref $b>. Which, looking at your proposal, is very close to
> C<$a
John Williams wrote:
>On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>> So I *really* don't think comparing the equality of references will be
>> a good idea, in P6.
> The main point is that the
> reference is a unique identifier for an object. At least, I haven't been
> able to think why it wouldn'
Larry Wall wrote:
> On the other hand, "is static" would be instantly recognizable to
> C programmers. Maybe they're due for a sop...
Bah! No sop for them! C has so many overloaded meanings in
C/C++ that who's to say this meaning is really the one that's worth
codifying? (I always felt this pa
Luke Palmer wrote:
> The idea is that positional parameters are always a contiguous
> sequence in the argument list. If it looked like this:
>
> sub foo($x, ?$y, +$k, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) {...}
>
> Then one might presume to call it like:
>
> foo($x, $y, $k, 1, 2, 3);
>
> Which they ca
Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 12:18:33PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> > The design team has already considered this idea, and my problem
> > with it then (and now) is that it's inconsistent with other forms
> > of variable declaration:
> >
> > my sub foo( ?$bar is consta
Uri Guttman wrote:
> > "NC" == Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> NC> How come there seems to be no way to specify mandatory named
> NC> parameters? I'm not sure that *I*'d ever want to write
>
> apoc6:
> A hash declaration like *%named indicates that the %named hash
>
