>That's what confused me too. But now I think that must have been for
>PMC registers only, not string registers.
From the archive:
So speaketh Dan.
>I seem to remember someone unpatching a couple of if (NULL == string)
>statements recently. I'll be blunt and say: DON'T DO THAT. Defens
At 02:25 AM 3/29/2002 -0500, Josh Wilmes wrote:
>Try this:
>
>http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-internals@perl.org/
Ah great! Last time I tried this it was dead. Must have
been a temporary thing.
-Melvin
At 2:14 on 03/29/2002 EST, Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Boy a searchable archive would be nifty right about now. Might be
> time for me to slurp the archive down to a local copy.
Try this:
http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-internals@perl.org/
--Josh
> > At one point I heard someone in charge say that NULLs were treated
> > as invalid internal state and a routine was not obligated to check for
> > NULL registers.
> >
> > If this is no longer the case, or never was, then I was either mistaken or
> > missed the email. Especially since I was arg
On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 02:00:16AM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
> At 10:50 PM 3/28/2002 -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
> >> The string_* functions treat NULL and an empty string as equivalent, so
> >> this saves time in case we don't actually do anything with the string.
> >
> >Okay, I just checked and yo
Whatever the answer is, it better end up in a PDD :)
--Josh
At 2:00 on 03/29/2002 EST, Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:50 PM 3/28/2002 -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
> > > The string_* functions treat NULL and an empty string as equivalent, so
> > > this saves time in case we don't a
At 10:50 PM 3/28/2002 -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
> > The string_* functions treat NULL and an empty string as equivalent, so
> > this saves time in case we don't actually do anything with the string.
>
>Okay, I just checked and you're right. I ran into it because not
>everything goes through the str
