On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 03:46:02PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Uh no. Okay, when I said that they "don't close", I guess I meant
> they don't close like anonymous routines do. It works precisely like
> Perl 5's:
>
> sub foo {
> my $foo = 5;
> sub bar {
> return $f
On 10/7/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luke Palmer skribis 2005-10-07 15:31 (-0600):
> > sub foo($x) {
> > sub bar() {
> > return $x;
> > }
> > return &bar;
> > }
> > foo(42).(); #
>
> Does this mean that this Perl 5 snippet no longer d
Luke Palmer skribis 2005-10-07 15:31 (-0600):
> Well, I see a cognitive downside. That is, package declarations (the
> default) don't create closures. It's like this:
> sub foo($x) {
> sub bar() {
> return $x;
> }
> return &bar;
> }
> foo(42).();
On 10/7/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Miroslav Silovic skribis 2005-10-07 13:07 (+0200):
> > Can an inline role be named?
> > 0 but role is_default {}
>
> This is a nice idea. It would require named roles (and to really be
> succesful, also classes, subs, methods, ...) declarations to be
>
Miroslav Silovic skribis 2005-10-07 13:07 (+0200):
> Can an inline role be named?
> 0 but role is_default {}
This is a nice idea. It would require named roles (and to really be
succesful, also classes, subs, methods, ...) declarations to be
expressions, but I see no downside to that.
Juerd
--
h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would this work too?
0 but role {}
Most certainly, but you would have no way to refer to that role later,
so it is questionable how useful that construct is. No, it's not
questionable. That is a useless construct.
Luke
Can an inline role be named?
0 b
On 10/6/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luke Palmer skribis 2005-10-06 14:23 (-0600):
> > my role is_default {} # empty
> > sub foo($a, ?$b = 0 but is_default) {...}
>
> Would this work too?
>
> 0 but role {}
Most certainly, but you would have no way to refer to that r
Luke Palmer skribis 2005-10-06 14:23 (-0600):
> my role is_default {} # empty
> sub foo($a, ?$b = 0 but is_default) {...}
Would this work too?
0 but role {}
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution
On 10/6/05, Dave Whipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sub foo( $a, ?$b = rand but :is_default )
> {
> ...
> bar($a,$b);
> }
>
> sub bar( $a, ?$b = rand but :is_default )
> {
>warn "defaulting \$b = $b" if $b.is_default;
>...
> }
>
>
> It would be unfortunate if the "is_default" proper
C properties get attached to a value, and are available when the
value is passed to other functions/ etc. I would like to be able to
define a property of a value that is trapped in the lexical scope where
it is defined. The example that set me thinking down this path is
sub foo( $a, ?$b = rand
10 matches
Mail list logo
