Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course, that's not to say that the particular C<undef> that's returned on
> failure-to-numerify mightn't have a property set that indicates the problem
> was not-a-numeric in nature.
Having more than one 'undef' value sounds like a recipe for internals
madness. Or is the undef that gets slung around actually going to be a
reference to the 'real' undef?
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
