in reply to RFC named parameter syntactic sugar

Does your method offer any real advantages over, say, Sub::Signatures?
  • Comment on Re: RFC named parameter syntactic sugar

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: RFC named parameter syntactic sugar
by snowhare (Friar) on Oct 15, 2005 at 20:28 UTC

    Backward compatibility to 5.005.

    Also, I couldn't figure out how to get Sub::Signature to handle a simple open ended named parameter hash like

    function_name( aname => 'value', anothername => 'value' );

    Honestly, given the docs, I'm not sure it can.

    And Sub::Signatures shows a disconcerting tendency to break even simple code.

    #!/usr/local/bin/perl use strict; use Sub::Signatures; my $example = { 'null_sub' => sub { null_sub( handle => 'Test', 'thing' => 'someth +ing')}, }; sub null_sub { }

    The above runs fine only if you comment out the 'use Sub::Signatures;'.

    Wierdly, changing the everywhere that says 'null' to 'method' works fine:

    #!/usr/local/bin/perl use strict; use Sub::Signatures; my $example = { 'null_method' => sub { null_method( handle => 'Test', 'thing' => ' +something')}, }; exit; sub null_method { }

    I think Sub::Signatures is trying to address a different problem. I think he is trying to add 'multi-dispatch' by method signature rather than simplify parameter parsing. I also think it is very fragile.