On 9/5/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thomas Sandlass skribis 2005-09-05 14:38 (+0200): > > b) if this is true, ?? evaluates its rhs such that it > > can't be undef > > But > > $foo ?? undef // 1 > > then is a problem.
Yeah. Hmm, but I kinda like the look of ?? //, and I don't like the overloading of :: in that way anymore. So it's possible just to add a ternary ?? // in addition to, and unrelated to (from the parser's perspective), the regular //. ?? !! ain't bad either. Luke
