Re: RFC 244 (v1) Method calls should not suffer from the action on a distance

On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 09:10:49PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: >if ( want->{count} > 2 ) { return $one, $two } > > Will that be interpreted as: > >'want'->{count} >want()->{count} > > To be consistent, it should mean the first one. That is, the infix > operator -> should always autoq

Re: RFC 244 (v1) Method calls should not suffer from the action on a distance

> Currently, > > foo->bar($baz) > > can be parsed either as C<<'foo'->bar($baz)>>, or as C> > depending on how the symbol C was used on other places. The proposal > is to always choose the first meaning: make C<< -> >> autoquote the bareword > on the left. Here is a question: How

Re: RFC 244 (v1) Method calls should not suffer from the action on a distance

>> $IO::STDERR->print @stuff; >> print $IO::STDERR @stuff; You know, I already resent having to use STDERR instead of stderr. Adding five noisy characters, or seven, is way, way over the top. As for system globals, when one suggested to Larry that these be something on the order of SYS::ARGV

Re: RFC 244 (v1) Method calls should not suffer from the action on a distance

On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 04:52:12PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: > Ok, you should clarify this. You're not suggesting that indirect object > syntax be removed. You're suggesting that it should not accept > barewords. These are two separate things. Agreed. I realized the ambiguity only after I poste

Re: RFC 244 (v1) Method calls should not suffer from the action on a distance

Ilya Zakharevich wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 04:26:47PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: > > > $IO::STDERR->print @stuff; > > > print $IO::STDERR @stuff; > > > > Ok, something here is extreme confused. Is not the second form an > > instance of indirect object syntax? > > It is not with a ba

Re: RFC 244 (v1) Method calls should not suffer from the action on a distance

On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 04:26:47PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: > > $IO::STDERR->print @stuff; > > print $IO::STDERR @stuff; > > Ok, something here is extreme confused. Is not the second form an > instance of indirect object syntax? It is not with a bareword at the second place, so is not caus

Re: RFC 244 (v1) Method calls should not suffer from the action on a distance

Ilya Zakharevich wrote: > > Why not use ->? > > $IO::STDERR->print @stuff; > print $IO::STDERR @stuff; Ok, something here is extreme confused. Is not the second form an instance of indirect object syntax? > == > This would cau

Re: RFC 244 (v1) Method calls should not suffer from the action on a distance

== Please show me how to write: print STDERR @stuff; without it, while keeping it a method of the STDERR filehandle, and without requiring ->. == Why not use ->?

Re: RFC 244 (v1) Method calls should not suffer from the action on a distance

>> foo->bar($baz, $coon) >> should be made synonymous with >> foo->bar $baz, $coon >> >> I can see no ambiguity in this call, but it not always works with Perl5. Arrow invocation does not a listop make. Only indirect object invocation style does that. print STDOUT $foo, $bar, $glarch;

Re: RFC 244 (v1) Method calls should not suffer from the action on a distance

Nathan Wiger wrote: > > This RFC proposes to remove indirect object syntax > > Please show me how to write: > >print STDERR @stuff; > > without it, while keeping it a method of the STDERR filehandle, and > without requiring ->. Hopefully STDERR as a "filehandle" is going away. Assuming it

Re: RFC 244 (v1) Method calls should not suffer from the action on a distance

> 'foo'->bar($baz) > > looks visually clattered, but C> looks as if it expresses > its meaning. The default choice is done so that if you need other > choice, your code does not look artificial. Hear, hear! > foo->bar($baz, $coon) > > should be made synonymous with > > foo

Re: RFC 244 (v1) Method calls should not suffer from the action on a distance

> This RFC proposes to remove indirect object syntax Please show me how to write: print STDERR @stuff; without it, while keeping it a method of the STDERR filehandle, and without requiring ->. -Nate

Re: RFC 244 (v1) Method calls should not suffer from the action on a distance

On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 08:08:06AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: > There only way to avoid the action at a distance is to prohibit one of these > interpretations. Since the other way C> to write this > method call is as convenient as the indirect object syntax, the proposal > is to

RFC 244 (v1) Method calls should not suffer from the action on a distance

This and other RFCs are available on the web at http://dev.perl.org/rfc/ =head1 TITLE Method calls should not suffer from the action on a distance =head1 VERSION Maintainer: Ilya Zakharevich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 15 Sep 2000 Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Number: 244 Version: