develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from August 2021

Re: Pre-RFC: Real "boolean" SV type

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Scott Baker
Date:
August 4, 2021 15:09
Subject:
Re: Pre-RFC: Real "boolean" SV type
Message ID:
34cf6ca0-1478-5f98-a414-512c32110563@perturb.org
On 8/4/21 7:58 AM, Paul "LeoNerd" Evans wrote:
> I propose the addition of a new SV type, of SVt_BOOL. Should I write an
> RFC?
>
> This type will act much like the existing "booleans" of PL_sv_no and
> PL_sv_yes, except its type will remain distinct, so it will be possible
> to distinguish "that SV is a boolean". This is a requirement for
> certain kinds of data serialisation - such as JSON or MsgPack - and may
> be useful for many other purposes too.
>
> Still to be determined: a pureperl interface on it. E.g. would this be
> possible:
>
>   use feature 'bool';
>
>   my $yes = true;   # new literal value keywords
>   my $no  = false;  #
>
>   use Scalar::Util 'svtype';
>
>   is( svtype($yes), "BOOL", 'true is SVt_BOOL');
>
> Thoughts on a postcard*.
>
>
> *: Where "postcard" means: **PLEASE KEEP REPLIES SHORT**. This is a
> pre-RFC question. Replies should be limited to the question of whether
> I should write the RFC - not about the feature itself.
>
I would *LOVE* this in Perl. I thought about requesting it myself but
every other post online asking about boolean in Perl is "you don't need
it in Perl" so I assumed the community was against it.

I support this 1000%. I even support this more than putting *trim()* in
core, but only by a little bit.

- Scott


Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About