On 3/27/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 02:54:05PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: > : On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:46:02PM +0200, Yuval Kogman wrote: > : > On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 14:35:52 -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: > : > > I think that if C<temp> is the new C<local>, then immediately after the > : > > C<temp $x> line, $x should hold whatever flavor of undef is appropriate. > : > <snip>> > : > > Is there some reason we're huffmannizing > : > <snip> > : > > : > Because 90% of the code that people use local for in perl 5 is for > : > counting levels and automatically unwrapping them. The other 10% are > : > for more complex values. > : > : Make me believe your 90/10 numbers. > > Doesn't matter what the numbers are, it's the right thing to do. > The default undef hack stems from the days when local() was trying > to fill the role of my() as well. Nowadays temp() should just > mean: "Please arrange to restore yourself to your current value" > and nothing more. (Well, plus the notion that, when applied to a > mutator, the save/restore instruction is passed on to the mutatee to > save itself before the mutation, not after.) > > The p5-to-p6 translator will turn > > local $x; > > into > > temp undefine $x; > > Larry >
In order not do do some strange magic could you jsut do: temp($x)++; That seems clear and non magical to me. Just my 2 cents! ;) -- -- __________ Eric Hodges
