Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2012
* Aaron Priven <aaron@priven.com> [2012-07-06T13:02:50] > It seems reasonable to me to argue that "in" is too specific, or not > powerful enough, to bother including in Perl, compared to more flexible > constructs such as the any() provided by Perl6::Junction. I don't agree > with that, because I think "is this an element of that list" is a basic > concept that is very commonly needed, and which deserves to have an easy > and utterly clear way to write it, and I think "$x in (list)" is a lot > clearer than "$x eq any(list)". But it's certainly reasonable to think > otherwise. > > But that has nothing to do with types. You wrote originally: > > > We're not going to be adding an `in` operator, because it goes against the > > idea of where Perl decides what type to use. It does, because in Perl 5, the question of type is often embedded in the operator. == forces its operands to act as numbers. eq, as strings. If the values held the types, `in` would be straightforward. In Perl 5, the operators hold the types, so `in` would have to pick a type of its own. -- rjbsThread Previous | Thread Next