On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:38 AM, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > HaloO, > Moritz Lenz wrote: > >> In Perl 5 a negative limit means "unlimited", which we don't have to do >> because we have the Whatever star. >> > > I like the notion of negative numbers as the other end of infinity. > Where infinity here is the length of the split list which can be > infinite if split is called on a file handle. So a negative number > could be the number of splits to skip from the front of the list. > And limits of the form '*-5' would deliver the five last splits. >

As another data point, this is the first thing I thought of when I read the email regarding negative limits. But then I thought "we're trying to get away from so much implicit magic". And I'm not sure the failure mode is loud enough when the skip-from-the-front semantics /aren't/ what you want (e.g., when the limit parameter is variable-ish) A limit of 0 is basically ignored. > > Here are a few solution I could think of > 1) A limit of 0 returns the empty list (you want zero items, you get them) > I think this is a nice degenerate case. > Me too. 2) A limit of 0 fail()s > This is a bit too drastic. Indeed. 3) non-positive $limit arguments are rejected by the signature (Int > where { $_ > 0 }) > I think that documents and enforces the common case best. But I would > include zero and use a name like UInt that has other uses as well. Are > there pragmas that turn signature failures into undef return values? > > > Regards, TSa. > -- > > "The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity" -- C.A.R. Hoare > "Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it." -- A.J. Perlis > 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan > my two cents, -Scott -- Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]