Piers Cawley writes:
: Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > Of course, that's not to say that the particular C that's returned on
: > failure-to-numerify mightn't have a property set that indicates the problem
: > was not-a-numeric in nature.
:
: Having more than one 'undef' value sound
Piers Cawley writes:
: If currying magic works in subroutine parameter strings then you can
: just do
:
: sub assert_with_func (&^sub is constant, $^expected is constant,
: $^got, $message)
: {
: &^sub($expected, $got) or die $message || $default_message
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course, that's not to say that the particular C that's returned on
> failure-to-numerify mightn't have a property set that indicates the problem
> was not-a-numeric in nature.
Having more than one 'undef' value sounds like a recipe for internals
mad
On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 09:06:14AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 02:53:19PM +0200, Nadim Khemir wrote:
>
> > > Don't we already have that in Perl 5?
> > >
> > > if ( /\G\s+/gc ) {# whitespaces }
> > >elsif ( /\G[*/+-]/gc ) { # operator }
> > >elsif (
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 02:53:19PM +0200, Nadim Khemir wrote:
> > Don't we already have that in Perl 5?
> >
> > if ( /\G\s+/gc ) {# whitespaces }
> >elsif ( /\G[*/+-]/gc ) { # operator }
> >elsif ( /\G\d+/gc ) {# term }
> >elsif ( /\G.+/gc ) { # unrecognized
