Miko O'Sullivan writes: : > I think you're right that this is a valid distinction, I'm just not : > sure if it's not a little too subtle and that the two different : > notations won't cause confusion. : : Well, I had been hoping to appeal to the mathematical mindset of the list, : but there is a second reason for = in addition to / /=: it's simpler to : understand. I just think that the potential Perl hackers will understand = : right away but will have to spin a lot of cycles to get / /=, and will : meanwhile be wondering why not just =. I'm hoping to point out that = is : both logically precise AND more marketable.
Leaving marketability aside for the moment, I don't buy the argument that it's a feature for the user to be able to pass an undef past the default. The primary purpose of the default is to guarantee the semantics of the function, not to make life easier for the caller. If that also happens, it's a nice side effect. Larry
