On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 01:18:32PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+contents. Non-container types define truthiness much as Perl 5 does.
Except -0.0 ?
(Which is a bit of a problem in Perl 5 - if the internals think that it's
a number, it's false. If it manages to get stringified, it now is
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 09:16:39AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: Though it's not quite the same, since the prefix presumably forces
: a multiple dispatch to Perl's idea of notiness, while a direct .not
: method would rely on the the object's notion of notiness. This is
: probably a good distinction
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:56:12PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 01:18:32PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: +=item *
: +
: +The definition of C.true for the most ancestral type (that is, the
: +CObject type) is equivalent to C.defined.
:
: Would we normally
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 01:18:32PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+=item *
+
+The definition of C.true for the most ancestral type (that is, the
+CObject type) is equivalent to C.defined.
Would we normally consider prefix:? to be defined in terms of
C.true, or vice versa? Is there a
