On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:45:18 +0000 (UTC), Ovid via perl5-porters <perl5-porters@perl.org> wrote: > On Sunday, 19 December 2021, 13:28:23 CET, Oodler 577 <oodler577@sdf-eu.org> wrote: > > > > Thank you, this is super helpful. My final comment is just to > > reiterate what I most recently said; as long as this doesn't > > affect how things currently work with undef/q{}/0 and existing > > built-ins/ops; and we get a C<unknown> built-in that does for > > unknown values what C<defined> does for undef'd values, > > For interpolation, I would suggest it behave like undef, but with a > warning. I would (only half-joking here), also consider it to > stringify to U+FFFD REPLACEMENT CHARACTER. 100% joking: 016844 𖡄 BAMUM LETTER PHASE-A UNKNOWN > my $name = unknown; > say "Hello, $name!"; > > Output: > > Use of unknown value $name in say at ... > Hello, �! > > > As an exercise, I wonder how many use cases for undef would remain > > if unknown was available. If the answer is "not many", then maybe > > the answer would be a compatible tweak to undef and not the > > creation of a new special value. Just a thought... > > I would not recommend changing current behavior of undef. That would > be widespread carnage. > > Ovid -- H.Merijn Brand https://tux.nl Perl Monger http://amsterdam.pm.org/ using perl5.00307 .. 5.33 porting perl5 on HP-UX, AIX, and Linux https://tux.nl/email.html http://qa.perl.org https://www.test-smoke.orgThread Previous | Thread Next