Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from March 2005
Re: s/true/better name/
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Mark J. Reed
Date:
March 16, 2005 10:42
Subject:
Re: s/true/better name/
Message ID:
42387DF4.6000203@turner.com
Luke Palmer wrote:
> Marcus Adair writes:
> > Additionally I question whether this is truly a case improving to the
> > point of least surprise? After all, I don't know a programmer who's
> > going to be surprised by what true means. There are still *some* things
> > you may have to learn in software dev 101 ;)
>
> The problem is this (common) one:
>
> if answer() == true {
> # do something
> }
>
> We want to give the programmer no good way to do that, because it's
> wrong.
>
What do you mean "wrong"? It looks perfectly valid to me. It's
redundant, since answer() by itself would suffice as a condition with no
comparison, but does that make it wrong?
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next