Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2013
On Wednesday January 23 2013 12:00:06 PM Karl Williamson wrote: > On 01/18/2013 04:56 AM, Dave Mitchell wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 06:28:15PM -0500, bulk88 wrote: > >> davem, do you have an opinion on khw's > >> > >>> What would the implications be of changing the macro to match the prior > >>> documentation, and return true if it is indeed SvIOK with a positive > >>> number? > >> > >> which I understand to mean adding lt/gt check against the UV/IV in > >> SvUOK macro? > > > > I don't like this idea. I'm happy with your suggested doc change, which > > > > documents the status quo: > >> Returns a boolean indicating whether the SV contains an integer which > >> must be interpreted as unsigned. An integer whose value is within the > >> range of both an IV and an UV maybe be flagged as either. > > Now changed with commit a6ceea0637411cc48e4e043c7d222d707dd3611a > > I changed Darin's wording slightly so as to not imply that a negative > number could be SvUOK. Just for kicks, I was going through the git log and found this. I didn't suggest the wording, bulk88 did :) But, thanks for the credit anyway :DThread Previous