Re11: Get rid of the Indirect Syntax, please!

That's not how I read A12. I understood it to be similar to C++ method overloading, where dispatch will determine which method(s) have the bester fit for a given signature based on the first N arguments (or somesuch), regardless of invocant-ness. But, I think we're extremely heavy off the speculation deep-end. Larry?!?

------
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

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

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re11: Get rid of the Indirect Syntax, please! by TimToady (Parson) on Apr 19, 2004 at 17:43 UTC
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).	[reply]
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]