Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...]
> My intention for PMCNULL was to catch invalid interpreter state, or > invalid bytecode; cases which used to give us core dumps. > > Explicitly returning PMCNULL and allowing tests on PMCNULL may > or may not fit into this, depending on your point of view. I'm not even > certain what my view of it is. Allowing ANY valid test on PMCNULL > seems to muddy the water by allowing it to actually be used. There is currently a way of creating such an object: null P0 But you can't do anything with this object. If there are valid reasons to create such an object, there should be a way to test for it. > The question is: should we allow a NULL register test > and would this replace Undef as the de facto way to return > "nothing". Probably the answer is "yes" but I'd like to hear Dan's > take on it. There is currently no general Undef, only a PerlUndef, which warns if used and morphs to a PerlInt when incremented. It might be best to create a undef.pmc. bye boe -- Juergen Boemmels [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fachbereich Physik Tel: ++49-(0)631-205-2817 Universitaet Kaiserslautern Fax: ++49-(0)631-205-3906 PGP Key fingerprint = 9F 56 54 3D 45 C1 32 6F 23 F6 C7 2F 85 93 DD 47
