Is there a way to access the field if it was hidden by a lexical variable with the same name?

[yuki-kimoto]

Is there a way to access the field if it was hidden by a lexical variable with the same name?

class MyClass {
  field $x;

  method foo () {
    my $x = 1;
    
    # How to access field $x?
    # In Java, this.x
  } 
}

[leonerd]

No. Don't do that.

[leonerd]

We haven't considered using twigils so far, as various people didn't like them in early design discussions, and the advocates couldn't find many reasons good enough to override that. If you want them to be seriously considered you'll have to make quite a strong case in their favour.

[yuki-kimoto]

Umm, I don't want Twigil. I want the same feature as this.field as Java.

field @field;

$self~>@field

$self:@field

$self::::@field

@:field

this @field

[leonerd]

The $:field syntax is called a twigil.

We did ponder on the idea of field $thing being similar to our $thing, in that duplicate declarations would in fact access the same one as before. That would permit (field $x) = $x in that situation. Problem is it's very messy - it then leaks out into the subsequent scope. We don't have lvalue do {} blocks so it's hard to contain it.

[yuki-kimoto]

is it's very messy.

I can also accept other expression.

it then leaks out into the subsequent scope

Is it because field is a declaration?

Isn't this.x = 3 in Java related to the subsequent scope?

[leonerd]

is it's very messy.

I can also accept other expression.

Suggest one that isn't terrible.

it then leaks out into the subsequent scope

Is it because field is a declaration?

Yes.

Isn't this.x = 3 in Java related to the subsequent scope?

Not in the slightest. It doesn't declare anything new.