Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from May 2005
Re: C<::> in rules
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Damian Conway
Date:
May 13, 2005 16:53
Subject:
Re: C<::> in rules
Message ID:
42853E0C.9090201@conway.org
Larry wrote:
> I'm still not sure I believe in booleans to that extent. I suppose
> we could go as far as to make it :p(0 but true). Actually, it's more
> like "undef but true", if you want to be able to distinguish
>
> sub foo (+$p = 0) { # no :p at all
> say "true" if $p; # :p with no argument
> $p //= 42; # :p with no argument
> ...
> }
Yes, I was thinking along the same lines. C<undef but true> as a default seems
to be more accurate and useful than C<Bool::true>.
Damian
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next