Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from September 2015
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:10:11 +0200 "H.Merijn Brand" <h.m.brand@xs4all.nl> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:58:02 +0100, "Paul \"LeoNerd\" Evans" > <leonerd@leonerd.org.uk> wrote: > > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:42:24 +0200 > > "H.Merijn Brand" <h.m.brand@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > > > > $x ~~ 42 --> $x == 42 ??? > > > $x ~~ "foo" --> $x eq "foo" ??? > > > > I expect not. > > > > my $x = 1; > > > > $x ~~ "1.0" > > > > does what? It's this "try to guess from many possible types of > > match" that is deemed the core problem of > > toosmartforitsowngood-match in the first place. > > If the case was keep it simple, your example would fail, as > > $x ~~ "1.0" => 1 eq "1.0" which is false, and I would accept that > > your case would be valid for > > $x ~~ 1.0 => 1 == 1.0 > > where it would match, and again I tend to agree Ah; the point of my email was to suggest that the omission of an eq- or ==-alike case might be intentional. If the mere syntax of trying to smartmatch against a string or number literal is *already* a syntax error, then nobody needs to think through the cornercases of what kinds of value might or might not match at runtime. Such a program won't compile. -- Paul "LeoNerd" Evans leonerd@leonerd.org.uk http://www.leonerd.org.uk/ | https://metacpan.org/author/PEVANSThread Previous