in reply to Re^3: Experimenting with Lvalue Subs
in thread Experimenting with Lvalue Subs
the primary purpose of an :lvalue sub is to create an lvalue
Sure, but what this thread is about is that most what people want in an assignable method isnt the same thing as an lvalue. The fact that 'lvalue' has been used in this thread is an indication of the problem, people want method calls that look like assignment and they think lvalue's are the way to get them. We need a different type of assignable method instead. While what lvalue subs are sounds like a nice thing it just isnt what most folks want when they want to write a getter/setter method. And I'm unconvinced that callback save the day at all. As BrowserUk pointed out we may make no direct mapping between the assigned value and any given memory location, so a callback from such a memory location just can't do what we want.