Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2012
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:14:03PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote: > I wish I had a good short-term solution as well, but I don't. We're > trying to add an essentially non-auto-coercive feature to an essentially > auto-coercive language, and the simple scalar as LHS is the single point > at which we get stuck between those two world-views. > > Some would say that's reason enough to abandon smartmatching > (because it's intrinsically different from most of the other Perl 5 operators). Well, no - the string/number distinction is the only place where this is the case (and this is a deep part of the language - perl basically always infers type from the operators rather than the operands, annoying exceptions like the bitwise operators notwithstanding). If we just drop that part of the proposal, everything else works fine (and would still let you be explicit about numeric matching if that's what you really wanted). -doyThread Previous | Thread Next