>>>>> "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LW> : then how would you assign undef to the only element of the
LW> array? would this : be needed:
LW> : @a = ( undef ) ; # same as p5?
LW> : vs.
LW> : @a = undef ; # like undef @a in p5?
LW> Those would do the same thing under the current proposal, since
LW> they're both in list context. If you really, really want a scalar
LW> undef value in list context, you could always say
LW> @a = scalar(undef);
that works. i am starting to see what you mean by undef knowing about
LW> : in fact i would like to
LW> : stop allowing undef as a function with args and have it only return a
LW> : scalar undef value. there should be a different op to truly make an
LW> : aggregate undefined (and i still don't see a need for that, emptying it
LW> : is all that i ever think is needed).
LW> We could certainly split out a separate undefine() function. We could
LW> even give it an optional argument that says *why* it's undefined, turning
LW> it into an unthrown exception, basically. We could use such a function
LW> to create interesting values of undef that are context sensitive.
that split makes sense as you are now using undef as a special (or as
you say below unexpected) value. so it shouldn't also be overloaded as a
function operating on variables. just doing the split will make me
happier (if you are so benevolent as to care about my happiness :).
LW> : in my world undef is a scalar value and nothing else. how do you see it
LW> : in p6?
LW> undef is not a scalar value, it is the explicit *absence* of a value
LW> where you expected one. In Perl 6, undef is the Bearer of Bad News.
oy! i feel the pain of the late night phone call. :)
Uri Guttman ------ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------- http://www.stemsystems.com
--Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding-
Search or Offer Perl Jobs ---------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org