On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 07:06:30PM +1100, Илья wrote:
: Hello there,
: what :foo<> should exactly produce?
: At first I was expecting:
: foo => ""
: but in Rakudo:
: foo => []
: and it looks like the right thing on the other hand.

At YAPC::EU I pointed out to Larry that we have an adverbial form that
defaults to true:

   :foo

and one that defaults to false:

   :!foo

but none that defaults to undef.

After rejecting my very reasonable suggestion of:

   :¡foo

(;-) Larry then proposed that:

   :foo()

should be identical to:

   :foo(undef)

I mention this merely to point out that Larry's response in this thread seems
to revise that proposition somewhat, and I would like to suggest that, if
:foo() is now to mean something more sophisticated that :foo(undef), then we
should still find a "cheap" way of building adverbs with undef values.

Damian

Reply via email to