Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2022
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 at 17:40, Paul "LeoNerd" Evans <leonerd@leonerd.org.uk> wrote: > 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". > FWIW, I would be strongly in favour of this. I have seen tons of code doing looks_like_a_number using regexes, and it is dog slow in comparison to doing it in C. Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"Thread Previous | Thread Next