On 9/5/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas Sandlass skribis 2005-09-05 14:38 (+0200):
> > b) if this is true, ?? evaluates its rhs such that it
> > can't be undef
> $foo ?? undef // 1
> then is a problem.
Yeah. Hmm, but I kinda like the look of ?? //, and I don't like the
overloading of :: in that way anymore. So it's possible just to add
a ternary ?? // in addition to, and unrelated to (from the parser's
perspective), the regular //.
?? !! ain't bad either.