Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2016
On 11 March 2016 at 01:50, Paul "LeoNerd" Evans <leonerd@leonerd.org.uk> wrote: >> then '&&&' would be just the natural thing for the AND-variant. >> Did I overlook something that would have prevented use of those >> operators? > > There's no need for a "defined-and" operator in Perl, because there is > no undefined value that is true. The regular "and" operators are fine > in this circumstance. I'm going to have to know what interpretation of code is expected from defined-and before I Understand this claim. Both my interpretations don't hold the same behaviour as && > 0: defined-and(0) = "true", defined-and(1) = "0", andand = "0" > empty-string: defined-and(0) = "true", defined-and(1) = "", andand = "" > truthy: defined-and(0) = "true", defined-and(1) = "truthy", andand = "true" > undef: defined-and(0) = undef, defined-and(1) = undef, andand = undef -- Kent KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNLThread Previous | Thread Next