Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2013
On 2 July 2013 13:47, Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 01:41:20PM +0200, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> > On 27 June 2013 03:59, Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> wrote:
>
> > Also $href->%* I suppose.
> > Can we talk about failure modes a bit?
> > A common idiom is to write @{ $foo || [] } in case $foo might be undefined.
> > Do you remember the conditional-dereference operator that was
> > bikeshedded to oblivion? ($foo?->bar() was one of the proposed
> > syntaxes). Can we have this, plus ->@*, plus ?->@* that would expand
> > to an empty list if its argument is undef?
>
> Ultimately it wasn't bikeshedded to oblivion.
>
> rjbs attempted to restart things, asking questions about how it was supposed
> to work, independent of its spelling, in certain unconsidered situations,
> such as LVALUE context.
Fair enough, I forgot about that episode. It was warnocked into oblivion then :)
> No-one answered.
>
> And that question is actually relevant. What would this do for undefined
> $foo?
>
> $foo->@* = @bar;
> @bar = $foo->@*;
>
>
> Presumably for what you're suggesting, in LVALUE context, $foo autovifies.
> In RVALUE context it does not (but does not error either)
@$foo autovivifies in LVALUE context, but errors in RVALUE context (if
$foo is undef). I don't think ->@* should have different semantics. Or
did you mean to ask the question about ?->@* ?
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next