在 Sep 12, 2006 6:59 PM 時，Gaal Yahas 寫到：
What invocant is constructed in this signature then?
method foo ($just_a_named_param)
Is the signature for &foo really the same as that of bar?
sub bar ($just_a_named_param)
As Larry said, they shouldn't be the same; the first one is
&f
Larry Wall wrote:
>
> I'm trying to decide if
>
>sub ($self: $just_a_named_param)
>
> can meaningfully put anything into $self. It seems doubtful, and it should
> probably be
>
>submethod ($self: $just_a_named_param)
I agree. If
sub ($self: $foo)
works than it reduces privacy, sinc
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:59:23PM +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote:
: On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 06:46:50PM +0800, Audrey Tang wrote:
: > >Does this mean a single named parameter called $x, or a default invocant
: > >and a single required positional named $x?
: >
: > "A default invocant" prolly doesn't make
2006/9/12, Gaal Yahas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Does this mean a single named parameter called $x, or a default invocant
and a single required positional named $x?
"A default invocant" prolly doesn't make sense there... There's
nothing to "default" to. :-)
Audrey
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 06:46:50PM +0800, Audrey Tang wrote:
> >Does this mean a single named parameter called $x, or a default invocant
> >and a single required positional named $x?
>
> "A default invocant" prolly doesn't make sense there... There's
> nothing to "default" to. :-)
What invocant i
I was writing tests for signatures and came across this ambiguity:
:(:$x)
Does this mean a single named parameter called $x, or a default invocant
and a single required positional named $x?
--
Gaal Yahas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://gaal.livejournal.com/
