Larry wrote:

I'm still not sure I believe in booleans to that extent.  I suppose
we could go as far as to make it :p(0 but true).  Actually, it's more
like "undef but true", if you want to be able to distinguish

    sub foo (+$p = 0) {         # no :p at all
        say "true" if $p;     # :p with no argument
        $p //= 42;              # :p with no argument

Yes, I was thinking along the same lines. C<undef but true> as a default seems to be more accurate and useful than C<Bool::true>.


Reply via email to