On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 10:37:13AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
: Luke wrote:
:
: >Hmm. I'll just [mention] that if != is implemented like this:
: >
: >multi sub infix: (Any|Junction $a, Any|Junction $b) {
: >!($a == $b);
: >}
: >
: >Then it Just Works.
:
: I'd be fine with the dw
Luke wrote:
Hmm. I'll just [mention] that if != is implemented like this:
multi sub infix: (Any|Junction $a, Any|Junction $b) {
!($a == $b);
}
Then it Just Works.
I'd be fine with the dwimmy version if that is the underlying rule, since then
the behaviour isn't a special case, and
On 5/15/05, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> multi sub infix: (Any|Junction $a, Any|Junction $b) {
> !($a == $b);
> }
>
> Then it Just Works.
Also, that's the right way to provide a working != for any object
which defines ==. We all want that, right?
Ashley Winters
On 5/14/05, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>
> > I don't think we can allow this situation to stand. Either we have
> > to make != and !~ and ne transform themselves via "not raising", or
> > we have to disallow negative comparisons on junctions entirely.
> >
> > Opinions
Larry wrote:
I don't think we can allow this situation to stand. Either we have
to make != and !~ and ne transform themselves via "not raising", or
we have to disallow negative comparisons on junctions entirely.
Opinions?
Making them DWIM here would be a mistake, since the dwimmery would disappear
Larry Wall wrote:
We have a bit of a problem with negative operators applied to junctions,
as illustrated recently on PerlMonks. To wit, when a native English
speaker writes
if $a != 1 | 2 | 3 {...}
they really mean one of:
if not $a == 1 | 2 | 3 {...}
if $a == none(1, 2, 3) {...}
or, e
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 09:31:29AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> I don't think we can allow this situation to stand. Either we have
> to make != and !~ and ne transform themselves via "not raising", or
> we have to disallow negative comparisons on junctions entirely.
I'm of the opinion that disallow
