On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Eric Brine <ikeg...@adaelis.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Dave Rolsky <auta...@urth.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Eric Brine <ikeg...@adaelis.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Dave Rolsky <auta...@urth.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Bill Moseley <mose...@hank.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Haven't those issues with eval been addressed in more recent versions
>>>>> of Perl? Well, that's one issue, but there are others, for example $@
>>>>> being set to a false value.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> That's kinda hard to do by accident.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Assuming you are in full control of all the relevant code, yes, I suppose
>> it is. That said, a little extra defensive programming usually seems like
>> the best choice to me. What is gained by discouraging people from using
>> CPAN modules that help avoid corner cases?
>>
>> No, even with that assumption. die(""), die(0) and die(undef) all put
> true values in $@.
>
*without
>perl -E"for ('', 0, undef) { eval { die($_) }; say $@ ? 'true' : 'false' }"
true
true
true
