--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 11:18:12AM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
> : By the way, I trust this will be addressed (if it hasn't been
> : already):
> :
> : perl5 -le 'print "gah!" if exists $a{b}{c}; print "phooey!"
> : if exists $a{b}'
> :
> : perlfunc say
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 11:18:12AM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
: By the way, I trust this will be addressed (if it hasn't been already):
:
: perl5 -le 'print "gah!" if exists $a{b}{c}; print "phooey!" if exists $a{b}'
:
: perlfunc says:
:
: This surprising autovivification in what does not at f
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 11:22:45PM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
: I think that, if Perl can determine the type with virtually no
: ambiguity, it should autovivify. In this case, since we know they
: wanted an array (they used the @ explicitly), we'll autovivify an array.
: (I say "virtually no" because
--
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:02:12
Brent Dax wrote:
>Erik Steven Harrison:
># >I think that, if Perl can determine the type with virtually no
># >ambiguity, it should autovivify.
>#
># Actually, this behavior has already (mostly) been decided over in P6
># language. It was decided (and I agre
Erik Steven Harrison:
# >I think that, if Perl can determine the type with virtually no
# >ambiguity, it should autovivify.
#
# Actually, this behavior has already (mostly) been decided over in P6
# language. It was decided (and I agree) that the Perl 5 behavior of
Can you give me a link or a
--
On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 23:22:45
Brent Dax wrote:
>Michael Lazzaro:
># Brent Dax wrote:
># >
># > I was writing up some docs (in a perldoc-like style--we can always
># > change the form later, but the content is important), and started
># > working on documenting references. I ended up wit
Michael Lazzaro:
# Brent Dax wrote:
# >
# > I was writing up some docs (in a perldoc-like style--we can always
# > change the form later, but the content is important), and started
# > working on documenting references. I ended up with this bit:
#
# I imagine (if there are no objections) that
Brent Dax wrote:
>
> I was writing up some docs (in a perldoc-like style--we can always
> change the form later, but the content is important), and started
> working on documenting references. I ended up with this bit:
I imagine (if there are no objections) that the general perldoc writing
style
Yeah, you're thinking along the same lines as I was. Unfortunately, there
needs to be consensus about whether this behavior should be changed before
it can be implemented -- any idea how to make that come about?
Deven
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, David L. Nicol wrote:
> "Deven T. Corzine" wrote:
> >
"Deven T. Corzine" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2000, Graham Barr wrote:
>
> > This has been discussed on p5p many many times. And many times
> > I have agreed with what you wrote. However one thing you did not mention,
> > but does need to be considered is
> >
> > func($x{1}{2}{3})
> >
> > at th
On Sat, 23 Dec 2000, Graham Barr wrote:
> This has been discussed on p5p many many times. And many times
> I have agreed with what you wrote. However one thing you did not mention,
> but does need to be considered is
>
> func($x{1}{2}{3})
>
> at this point you do not know if this is a read o
This has been discussed on p5p many many times. And many times
I have agreed with what you wrote. However one thing you did not mention,
but does need to be considered is
func($x{1}{2}{3})
at this point you do not know if this is a read or write access as
the sub could do $_[0] = 'fred'. If th
12 matches
Mail list logo
