Markus Laker schreef:
> If I've got this right:
>
> mangle $foo :a;# mangle($foo, a => 1);
> mangle $foo: a;# $foo.mangle(a());
>
> So these --
>
> mangle $foo:a;
> mangle $foo : a;
>
> are ambiguous and, as far as I can tell from the synopses, undefined.
> So what's the rule: that ind
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, TSa
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only operator that can be used to investigate these values should
> be ~~ and the given/when statement that uses it.
Why should that be true? What's wrong with treating it as an object
like anything else?
The trick is limitin
At 11:52 +0200 10/8/07, TSa wrote:
>HaloO,
>
>My understanding is that values like NaN or Inf are exceptional. That
>means you can understand them as unthrown or in-band exceptions. Like
>undef they might contain interesting information about their
>origination. That being said I think these except
HaloO,
brian d foy wrote:
So, then, back to the question. People don't care how it's implemented
(and it would be great if we didn't have to explain it). What's the
idiom for the comparison going to be?
My understanding is that values like NaN or Inf are exceptional. That
means you can underst
