--- 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
Jonadab the Unsightly One said:
> $s = %h{foo} = nonex;
>
> After deleting the foo key (and its value, if any) from %h this then
> probably procedes to autovivify it when evaluating it as an rvalue;
Now why on earth would you want to do that? Perl 5 doesn't.
By the way, I trust this will be
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A synonym of:
>
> delete %h{foo};
>
> would be
>
> %h{foo} = nonex;
This has the potential, if not documented exactly right, to create
bogus expectations. Consider...
$s = %h{foo} = nonex;
After deleting the foo key (and its value, if any)
I wrote:
> Damian explains:
> > Trey asked:
> >
> > > To take the E6 example of currying &part:
> > >
> > >&List::Part::part.assuming(labels => <>)
> > >
> > > One had to curry in C to be the same as it was defined in C<&part>
> > > originally, i.e. C<< <> >>.
> > >
> > > What if one wanted
> Trey asked:
>
> > To take the E6 example of currying &part:
> >
> >&List::Part::part.assuming(labels => <>)
> >
> > One had to curry in C to be the same as it was defined in C<&part>
> > originally, i.e. C<< <> >>.
> >
> > What if one wanted to curry in whatever the default is, i.e., assu
Trey asked:
To take the E6 example of currying &part:
&List::Part::part.assuming(labels => <>)
One had to curry in C to be the same as it was defined in C<&part>
originally, i.e. C<< <> >>.
What if one wanted to curry in whatever the default is, i.e., assuming
"nothing" (different from "assum
This is, I believe, an extension of the undef vs. null discussion that
went on some time back (we were discussing default values for arrays,
types, etc.)
The consensus (which I remain in disagreement with) was that undef
meant "go get your default" -- in effect, that you couldn't store undef
into
In a message dated Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Austin Hastings writes:
> assuming(labels => undef)
Okay... I think you're wrong, because this would have to be a special case
(defaults take effect only when *nothing* is passed in, not when the
argument is undefined) but, assuming you're right... if I want to
--- Trey Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To take the E6 example of currying &part:
>
>&List::Part::part.assuming(labels => <>)
>
> One had to curry in C to be the same as it was defined in
> C<&part>
> originally, i.e. C<< <> >>.
>
> What if one wanted to curry in whatever the default i
To take the E6 example of currying &part:
&List::Part::part.assuming(labels => <>)
One had to curry in C to be the same as it was defined in C<&part>
originally, i.e. C<< <> >>.
What if one wanted to curry in whatever the default is, i.e., assuming
"nothing" (different from "assuming nothing"
11 matches
Mail list logo
