Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from July 2006
Darren Duncan wrote: > Now, I didn't see them yet anywhere in Synopsis 3, but I strongly > recommend having negated versions of all these various types of equality > tests. Eg, !== for ===, nev for eqv, etc. They would be used very > frequently, I believe (and I have even tried to do so), and of course we > get the nice parity. Yes and they should be strictly implicitly defined in term of the positive versions in such a way that you can't explicitly redefine them separately. I.e., $x !== $y should always mean exactly the same thing as !($x === $y). Maybe by a macro definition. To do otherwise would be very confusing as it would make such simple program transformations as: say "foo" if $x !== $y; into say "foo" unless $x === $y; very unreliable. Actually a similar argument could be made about '<' vs '>', '>=' and '<=' in other words just redefining '==' & '<' should automatically get you '!=', '<=', '>=' and '>'. -- mark@biggar.org mark.a.biggar@comcast.netThread Previous | Thread Next