On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 09:53:33PM -0000, Father Chrysostomos wrote: > Dave Mitchell wrote: > > Given the amount of time (i.e. too much) that I've already spent on > > reworking the AASSIGN op, I think I'm going to leave undef > > By which I think you mean returning the rhs if the lhs is immortal. Yes. > I > would say yes, let sleeping dogs lie; since it is not clear how things > *should* behave, just preserve the existing behaviour. Agreed. > > and \(@a) > > lvalue behaviour alone for now. I'll still merge the f(($a,@b, $c) = ()) > > fix though if people agree. > > I may be too late, but what would the new behaviour be? If I under- > stand correctly, it would be that the number of elements on the > rhs is returned in scalar context, but the elements on the lhs are > returned in list context. Is that right? Yes. The scalar behaviour is unchanged. The list behaviour is changed in the presence of aggregates on the LHS. Previously (($a,$b,@c,$d) = (1)) returned ($a); now it returns ($a,$b,$d). (($a,$b,$c) = (1)) returned, and still returns, ($a,$b,$c). > Is that what we want? It's what I want ;-) I've just pulled it into blead and pushed it (before I saw your email), so I'll have to revert it if people agree otherwise. -- "I do not resent criticism, even when, for the sake of emphasis, it parts for the time with reality". -- Winston Churchill, House of Commons, 22nd Jan 1941.Thread Previous | Thread Next