Marvin Humphrey wrote on 11/29/15, 5:44 PM:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 2:26 AM, Nick Wellnhofer<[email protected]> wrote:
For Perl, I find "undef means false" more idiomatic.
I see that you're using single-positional-argument functions for your example
code. That would never have occurred to me, because I care more about the
behavior of named parameters. I agree that treating
single-positional-argument undef as false is reasonable.
How about changing the behavior of autogenerated bindings for
single-positional-argument functions while keeping the current behavior for
named parameters? Would that be satisfactory?
That seems like a decent compromise.
Otherwise, a custom XS wrapper for back compat specifically for Perl seems
reasonable. That was my first thought too.
--
Peter Karman . http://peknet.com/ . [email protected]
