Re: Re11: Get rid of the Indirect Syntax, please!

I'm inclined to say that the caller isn't allowed to say how many of the args are invocants. It's either single dispatch or multiple dispatch (with the fuzzy area in the middle for argumentless calls).

Comment on Re: Re11: Get rid of the Indirect Syntax, please!

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re11: Get rid of the Indirect Syntax, please! by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Apr 19, 2004 at 18:25 UTC
And am I correct in saying that dispatch will happen based on the argument types, regardless of bless'edness? Meaning, I could do something like `foo($bar, 1, 2)` and end up calling, essentially, `$bar->foo(1, 2)` under the covers? ------ We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age. Then there are Damian modules.... sigh* ... that's not about being less-lazy -- that's about being on some really good drugs -- you know, there is no spoon.* - flyingmoose	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: Re11: Get rid of the Indirect Syntax, please!
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Apr 19, 2004 at 18:25 UTC

foo($bar, 1, 2)

$bar->foo(1, 2)

------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

Then there are Damian modules.... *sigh* ... that's not about being less-lazy -- that's about being on some really good drugs -- you know, there is no spoon. - flyingmoose

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]