On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 07:06:30PM +1100, Илья wrote: : Hello there, : what :foo<> should exactly produce? : At first I was expecting: : foo => "" : but in Rakudo: : foo => [] : and it looks like the right thing on the other hand.
At YAPC::EU I pointed out to Larry that we have an adverbial form that defaults to true: :foo and one that defaults to false: :!foo but none that defaults to undef. After rejecting my very reasonable suggestion of: :¡foo (;-) Larry then proposed that: :foo() should be identical to: :foo(undef) I mention this merely to point out that Larry's response in this thread seems to revise that proposition somewhat, and I would like to suggest that, if :foo() is now to mean something more sophisticated that :foo(undef), then we should still find a "cheap" way of building adverbs with undef values. Damian
