Front page | perl.perl6.language.strict |
Postings from February 2001
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