Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2021
Very much support this idea.
One question, how would it handle this annoyance?
#!/usr/bin/env perl
use strict;use warnings;
my @list = map { rand(50) } 1 .. 10;my $matches = 0;for (@list) { $matches += $_ > 25; # ???}print "Matches = $matches\n";
Yes, that's an abuse, but it's the kind of crud we see in the wild (and it doesn't throw any warnings);
Best,Ovid-- IT consulting, training, specializing in Perl, databases, and agile developmenthttp://www.allaroundtheworld.fr/.
Buy my book! - http://bit.ly/beginning_perl
On Thursday, 5 August 2021, 07:34:36 CEST, Tom Molesworth via perl5-porters <perl5-porters@perl.org> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 11:37, Darren Duncan <darren@darrenduncan.net> wrote:
Thank you!
I fully agree Perl would benefit greatly from having a dedicated boolean type.
Please do keep in mind the original request:
> *: 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.
The rest of your reply might be more appropriate *after* the RFC has been written?
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next