>>>>> "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LW> : then how would you assign undef to the only element of the LW> array? would this : be needed: LW> : LW> : @a = ( undef ) ; # same as p5? LW> : LW> : vs. LW> : @a = undef ; # like undef @a in p5? LW> Those would do the same thing under the current proposal, since LW> they're both in list context. If you really, really want a scalar LW> undef value in list context, you could always say LW> @a = scalar(undef); that works. i am starting to see what you mean by undef knowing about context. LW> : in fact i would like to LW> : stop allowing undef as a function with args and have it only return a LW> : scalar undef value. there should be a different op to truly make an LW> : aggregate undefined (and i still don't see a need for that, emptying it LW> : is all that i ever think is needed). LW> We could certainly split out a separate undefine() function. We could LW> even give it an optional argument that says *why* it's undefined, turning LW> it into an unthrown exception, basically. We could use such a function LW> to create interesting values of undef that are context sensitive. that split makes sense as you are now using undef as a special (or as you say below unexpected) value. so it shouldn't also be overloaded as a function operating on variables. just doing the split will make me happier (if you are so benevolent as to care about my happiness :). LW> : in my world undef is a scalar value and nothing else. how do you see it LW> : in p6? LW> undef is not a scalar value, it is the explicit *absence* of a value LW> where you expected one. In Perl 6, undef is the Bearer of Bad News. oy! i feel the pain of the late night phone call. :) uri -- Uri Guttman ------ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------- http://www.stemsystems.com --Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding- Search or Offer Perl Jobs ---------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org
