in reply to Re^12: localizing lexical without messing with tie ?
in thread localizing lexical without messing with tie ?

Named parameters in perl lingo are something like tst(-named=> parameter)

That's one means of achieving named parameters. (It also provides named arguments.) However, the method that was mentioned was Sub::Parameters. It's much closer to what you want. There might be others; I just mentioned the first I found.

many people here have a more emotional attitude about the "right way to do it".

What's the "right way" is a matter of debate because. However, some ways are clearly bad ways of doing it, such as having to declare the callee's parameters in a scope that's visible to both the callee and the caller.

  • Comment on Re^13: localizing lexical without messing with tie ?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^14: localizing lexical without messing with tie ?
by LanX (Saint) on Sep 12, 2010 at 13:04 UTC
    > That's one means of achieving named parameters. (It also provides named arguments.)

    your distinction between "parameters" and "arguments" is strange, especially when they are named it doesn't make much sense.

    compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameter_(computer_science)#Parameters_and_arguments

    > ... was Sub::Parameters. It's much closer to what you want.

    Sub::Parameters depends on non core modules for aliasing.

    > ... such as having to declare the callee's parameters in a scope that's visible to both the callee and the caller.

    that's the nature of closures.

    Cheers Rolf

[reply]
      The link supports my usage. A parameter is the slot that takes the value (i.e. the variable inside the function). Argument is a value passed to a function (i.e. the expression in the caller).

      Sub::Parameters depends on non core modules for aliasing.

      Core doesn't provide a ready made solution, so necessarily, the code must come from outside the core.

      that's the nature of closures.

      Completely false.

      You're obviously trying to avoid solving your problem, so I'm off.

[reply]
        Ikegami, please read the OP , non-CORE was part of my question.

        > You're obviously trying to avoid solving your problem, so I'm off.

        No, I'm trying to avoid to solve _your_ problem.

        I already thanked you and told you politely for 4 or 5 times that I already solved my problem, you are the one who is doggedly insisting to solve his perception of a XY-problem and snarls about bad coding style.

        No idea why I'm still polite enough to reply, it takes a lot of energy to quarrel with you till it's obvious that you are misinterpretating things.

        Cheers Rolf

[reply]
          A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom