Re: Is this small perlapi amendment correct?

On 07/20/2013 12:21 AM, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 07:51:49AM +0200, Steffen Mueller wrote:
>> and useful to apply?
>
> Possibly. Perl_av_pop already has some wording to that effect:
>
>      Removes one SV from the end of the array, reducing its size by one and
>      returning the SV (transferring control of one reference count) to the
>      caller.  Returns C<&PL_sv_undef> if the array is empty.
>
> It would be best if they used similar phasing, although I'm undecided
> which one is clearer.

I went with the moral equivalent of the text of av_pop and just pushed 
that change.

Thanks for the sanity check.

--Steffen

• Is this small perlapi amendment correct? by Steffen Mueller
• Re: Is this small perlapi amendment correct? by Dave Mitchell
• Re: Is this small perlapi amendment correct? by Zefram
• Re: Is this small perlapi amendment correct? by Steffen Mueller