Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2022
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 17:21:58 +0100 demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 at 17:31, Paul "LeoNerd" Evans > <leonerd@leonerd.org.uk> wrote: > > > At this point I suddenly don't even like the word "Type". But > > currently I don't have a better one - words like "nature", "facet", > > "ability" or "capability" all feel wrong somehow. > > > > This reminds me of looks_like_a_number() which pops up all over the > place. And I wonder if we even need to have a test for "looks like > text", if we have tests for everything else then the only thing left > is "text" (without getting into debates about whether the text is > pure-octets, or unicode or whatever). Yes; indeed when briefly discussing these "was originally number/string" functions on the PSC call today, Rik mentioned looks_like_a_number. It's quite similar on intent and naming scheme. I also note that we don't (yet) have a builtin::looks_like_a_number so perhaps there'd be scope for adding all three of these together, where the documentation can point out to would-be users of "was_originally_number" that they almost-certainly didn't want that function and should instead consider "looks_like_a_number". -- Paul "LeoNerd" Evans leonerd@leonerd.org.uk | https://metacpan.org/author/PEVANS http://www.leonerd.org.uk/ | https://www.tindie.com/stores/leonerd/Thread Previous | Thread Next