Larry wrote:
: >(+$name, +$id) := getinfo();
:
: Err, no. Or at least: "Please, No!". ;-)
:
: That would certainly be a way cool abbreviation, but I suspect it would be
: a Very Bad Idea for unary plus to have two unrelated meanings out in the
: actual code. I suspect that the "named-only"
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 12:05:32PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: Luke Palmer asked:
: >(Or, in this precise case:)
: >
: >(+$name, +$id) := getinfo();
:
: Err, no. Or at least: "Please, No!". ;-)
:
: That would certainly be a way cool abbreviation, but I suspect it would be
: a Very Bad Idea
David Wheeler wrote:
Welcome back, Damian. Lo, how we've missed you and Larry these many long
months!
Thanks to everyone for the warm welcome. Just to give you an update, I've be
ill too (nothing nearly as serious as Larry...just a mild influenza and a
little light pneumonia ;-) and I've also b
On Sunday, October 26, 2003, at 05:05 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
Err, no. Or at least: "Please, No!". ;-)
That would certainly be a way cool abbreviation, but I suspect it
would be a Very Bad Idea for unary plus to have two unrelated meanings
out in the actual code. I suspect that the "named-only
Hi Damian, welcome back!
Damian Conway writes:
> Luke Palmer asked:
>
> >Presuming you can do:
> >
> >(who => $name, why => $reason) := (why => $because, who => "me");
> >
> >(from A6)
> >
> >Does that imply that you can do:
> >
> >sub routine (name => $nombre, date => $fecha) {...}
>
>
Luke Palmer asked:
Presuming you can do:
(who => $name, why => $reason) := (why => $because, who => "me");
(from A6)
Does that imply that you can do:
sub routine (name => $nombre, date => $fecha) {...}
If we're consistent about lvalues of binds being the same as argument lists,
it prob
David Storrs writes:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 12:57:18AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > Presuming you can do:
> >
> > (who => $name, why => $reason) := (why => $because, who => "me");
> >
> > (from A6)
> >
> > Does that imply that you can do:
> >
> > sub routine (name => $nombre, date =
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 12:57:18AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Presuming you can do:
>
> (who => $name, why => $reason) := (why => $because, who => "me");
>
> (from A6)
>
> Does that imply that you can do:
>
> sub routine (name => $nombre, date => $fecha) {...}
>
> Anyway, I just reali
Presuming you can do:
(who => $name, why => $reason) := (why => $because, who => "me");
(from A6)
Does that imply that you can do:
sub routine (name => $nombre, date => $fecha) {...}
Anyway, I just realized that this is finally an elegant way to do
multiple, unordered return values:
