Re^3: A question about method return values and error checking

> f( name => get_name(), foo => 1 );

That's because the design of => is flawed.

It should enforce scalar context, if people want to use it as a pairing operator.

  DB<106> sub tst { return }

  DB<107> x a => scalar( tst() ), b=>2
 => ("a", undef, "b", 2)
[download]

And yes I know that Moose relies on this "feature", but you can't have it all.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)

Je suis Charlie!}

Comment on Re^3: A question about method return values and error checking Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: A question about method return values and error checking (=>) by tye (Sage) on Nov 09, 2015 at 18:09 UTC
Well, the Perl 5 implementation of `=>` has that problem. I recall discussions of enforcing scalar context when `=>` was still fairly new, but it was already too late. Then Perl 6 made it so. And the problems with `return;` from a sub that otherwise returns a single scalar go way beyond just uses of `=>`, of course. - tye	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^5: A question about method return values and error checking (=>) by LanX (Saint) on Nov 09, 2015 at 18:52 UTC
> go way beyond just uses of =>, of course. Well I had the Stop Using Perl discussion in mind. Using fat-comma + sub-call has unpredictable consequences, mainly b/c people are led to the misinterpretation that `=>` is pairing two values like e.g. `:` is doing in JS. Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :) Je suis Charlie!}	[reply] [d/l] [select]