a win-win.
- sebastian
On 12/17/05, Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>> "LP" == Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> LP> Actually, you can think of undef pretty much as defining
> LP> autovivification. "If you use it a
s (something) to
to define the behavior of all undefs declared within the
given scope. Since each undef is a magic object, it doesn't lose its
effect when undef variables are passed to methods enforcing different
undef behaviors because it carries the behavior from whence it was
defined.
On 12
too. Something like this might translate into
executing the sub in a try/catch such that if the undef error occurs,
undef is returned
- sebastian
On 12/16/05, Darren Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Something else I've been thinking about, as a tangent to the
> relational da
es or says. Looking for
some_code_like_this() in a place that uses some-code-like-this() might
be troublesome.
- sebastian
On 11/16/05, Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not a Lisp weenie. However, I have always preferred
> hyphens over underscores, and I
ty, et al). As long as p6
isn't taking away from any of the functionality or DWIMery I won't
have any objections
- Sebastian
> I think it'd be great if +=, ~=, +&=, ++, etc, could all assume $_ on
> their LHS when there is no obvious operand.
It'd be nice to have these, but is it something that can wait? I
wouldn't mind if more effort was spent on other pieces if this can be
easily done in the future
- sebastian
> Please let that the sigil looks like a certain leter not be a reason.
>
>
> Juerd
They make for good mnemonics, which isn't necessarily a bad thing for
people coming from languages without them or with fewer
- sebastian
