On Tuesday 20 February 2001 19:34, Edward Peschko wrote: > Well, for one, your example is ill-considered. You are going to get > autovivification saying: > The two ideas were disjoint. The example wasn't an example of autoviv. > Hence I'd say that @foo[$bar] has NO INTRINSIC VALUE whatsoever. Correct, which is why I could care less if Perl warns me about it. > > Second, with the keyword empty (if it comes to pass) the reasons for > interpretation of undef as 0 and "" go away. Right now, things are a PITA > to get empty values: > > my ($a, $b, $c, $d, $e) = ('') x 5; I *like* the interpretation of undef as 0 and "". It's useful. Sometimes. Sometimes it's not. And that's fine. > > With empty: > > my ($a, $b, $c, $d, $e) = empty; There's no reason in the world why that should replace undef -> 0 and "". > > > I would rather say, and I think it would be more perlish to say, "I'm not > > feeling particularly perly today, can you check for anything clever, cause > > if there is, chances are it's a mistake." > > Or how about "I'm feeling particularly lazy today, I think I'll sleep in. Lets > worry about any mistakes I might make another day." Well, Laziness is One of the Three. Let me rephrase. Perl shouldn't bitch at me for valid perl. > > For i maintain that any 'cleverness' that you might have that causes warnings > in perl6 will *probably* be a mistake. Certainly, because it seems that all things inherently Perl are being removed from the language. :-( -- Bryan C. Warnock bwarnock@capita.com