Larry wrote:
I'm still not sure I believe in booleans to that extent. I suppose we could go as far as to make it :p(0 but true). Actually, it's more like "undef but true", if you want to be able to distinguish
sub foo (+$p = 0) { # no :p at all say "true" if $p; # :p with no argument $p //= 42; # :p with no argument ... }
Yes, I was thinking along the same lines. C<undef but true> as a default seems to be more accurate and useful than C<Bool::true>.
Damian
