This is, I believe, an extension of the undef vs. null discussion that went on some time back (we were discussing default values for arrays, types, etc.)
The consensus (which I remain in disagreement with) was that undef meant "go get your default" -- in effect, that you couldn't store undef into a value that had a default specified. If that consensus remains, there is no way to pass undef to a parameter with a default value specified, as I read it. (Which is one of about a million reasons why I don't like it.) =Austin --- Trey Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In a message dated Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Austin Hastings writes: > > assuming(labels => undef) > > Okay... I think you're wrong, because this would have to be a special > case > (defaults take effect only when *nothing* is passed in, not when the > argument is undefined) but, assuming you're right... if I want to > pass > undef to labels, what would I write? > > -- > Trey Harris > Vice President > SAGE -- The System Administrators Guild (www.sage.org) > Opinions above are not necessarily those of SAGE.
