sure what I saw when I first read it to think what I did. Comment retracted
as not-helpful. Sorry.
-Chad
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Dave Mitchell wrote:
A1..A4, each of which causes @_ to behave in a particular way.
Which of those options are unclear to you?
--
O Unicef Clearasil!
Gibberish and Drivel!
-- "Bored of the Rings"
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 07:56:27AM -0700, Chad Granum wrote:
Not setting @_ could be a problem for tail-end recursion using goto &foo;
I love the signatures. I also love controlled and sane use of goto &sub. I
would not be happy if signatures made goto &sub harder.
When you say @_ is unset, do you mean it is empty, but still a unique array
for each function? if @_ was arguments to a function higher up the stack I
could see that as a total disaster (but I am hoping nobody proposed that).
If by empty you mean @_ will be an empty array for functions with
signatures, that would not bother me so much.
Nowhere in my email do I use the word 'unset'. I proposed 4 options,Not setting @_ could be a problem for tail-end recursion using goto &foo;
I love the signatures. I also love controlled and sane use of goto &sub. I
would not be happy if signatures made goto &sub harder.
When you say @_ is unset, do you mean it is empty, but still a unique array
for each function? if @_ was arguments to a function higher up the stack I
could see that as a total disaster (but I am hoping nobody proposed that).
If by empty you mean @_ will be an empty array for functions with
signatures, that would not bother me so much.
A1..A4, each of which causes @_ to behave in a particular way.
Which of those options are unclear to you?
--
O Unicef Clearasil!
Gibberish and Drivel!
-- "Bored of the Rings"
