home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.perl
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!mhres!pronto!news
- From: jv@mh.nl (Johan Vromans)
- Subject: Re: explicit sub parameters - a proposal
- In-Reply-To: mcook@fendahl.dev.cdx.mot.com's message of Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:30:11 GMT
- Message-ID: <BxswLJ.7qF@pronto.mh.nl>
- X-Md4-Signature: a5b256844b88b2c9266101d06202f6af
- Sender: news@pronto.mh.nl (USEnet News System)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: largo:(jv)
- Organization: Multihouse Automation, the Netherlands
- References: <mcook.721530385@fendahl.dev.cdx.mot.com>
- <1992Nov12.153941.18318@news.eng.convex.com>
- <mcook.721600211@fendahl.dev.cdx.mot.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 08:51:19 GMT
- Lines: 22
-
- In article <mcook.721600211@fendahl.dev.cdx.mot.com> mcook@fendahl.dev.cdx.mot.com (Michael Cook) writes:
-
- > I've come to learn that &foo(@abc) means &foo($abc[0], ...,
- > $abc[$#abc]). I'm sure that changing the rules would break a lot
- > of existing code.
-
- Only if you supply a function definition that indicates otherwise.
- Default behaviour can still be as usual.
-
- > In the definition ``sub foo(@alpha, @beta, $gamma, %delta)'', perl
- > -w should warn about the parameters that follow @alpha, since the
- > declaration doesn't make sense.
-
- Of course not! A sub like this one *REQUIRES* two arrays, a scalar and
- an associative array. Anything else should be treated like an error.
-
- Johan
- --
- Johan Vromans jv@mh.nl via internet backbones
- Multihouse Automatisering bv uucp:..!{uunet,sun4nl}!mh.nl!jv
- Doesburgweg 7, 2803 PL Gouda, The Netherlands phone/fax: +31 1820 62911/62500
- ------------------------ "Arms are made for hugging" -------------------------
-