David Whipp writes:
: Piers Cawley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
: > Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > > I suppose this discussion also raises the vexed question
: > whether ??:: can also be put out to pasture in favour of:
: > >
: > > $val = if $x { 1 } else { 2 };
:
: I like
Tony Olekshy writes:
: In Apocalypse 4, Larry Wall wrote:
: |
: | In fact, a C of the form:
: |
: | CATCH {
: | when xxx { ... } # 1st case
: | when yyy { ... } # 2nd case
: | ... # other cases, maybe a default
: |
Piers Cawley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I suppose this discussion also raises the vexed question
> whether ??:: can also be put out to pasture in favour of:
> >
> > $val = if $x { 1 } else { 2 };
I like that idea.
> Only if you can also
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 09:14:10AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> NaN is merely the floating-point representation of undef when your
> variable is stored in a bare num. And if you declare a variable as
> int, there may well be no representation for undef at all! Similarly,
> it may be impossible to
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 03:02:06PM -0500, Tzadik Vanderhoof wrote:
>> Why all the fuss? Often, you would *want* to access that lexical after the
>> loop terminates, for instance to check how it terminated.
>
> In most cases you don't want that to h
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suppose this discussion also raises the vexed question whether ??::
> can also be put out to pasture in favour of:
>
> $val = if $x { 1 } else { 2 }
Only if you can also do:
if $x { $x } else { $y } = 'foo';
But that looks really scary.
-
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 03:27:29PM -0500, Casey West wrote:
>> So you're suggesting that we fake lexical scoping? That sounds more
>> icky than sticking to true lexical scoping. A block dictates scope,
>> not before and not after. I don't see ick
