Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >What I think might be more interesting or useful would be to have
> >another undef type. Call it uninit. THis would be only used for data
> >that hasn't been initialized. Then there would be two warnings one
> >for unitialized and one for using unde
>So you wouldn't be in favour of:
>my Dog $spot;
>print defined($spot) ? 'defined' : 'undefined'; # undefined
>print $spot->isa('Dog') ? 'Dog' : 'not dog';# Dog;
>then?
>Bang goes that RFC...
No, I would argue that undef() be changed to uninitialize().
This is infinitely better
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 09:36:55AM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> No, I would argue that undef() be changed to uninitialize().
> This is infinitely better for many, many reasons.
6) It would discourage this meme:
(undef, undef, undef, undef, undef, $year, undef, undef, undef) =
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:59:52 -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>Consider:
>
>my Dog $spot = Cat->new;
>print $spot->isa('Dog') ? 'Dog' : 'not dog';
>
>Currently, $spot is not a dog. It should probably remain that way.
My gut feeling tells me you shouldn't be allowed to assign a non-Dog to
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 04:15:24PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> my Dog $spot;
> print defined($spot) ? 'defined' : 'undefined'; # undefined
> print $spot->isa('Dog') ? 'Dog' : 'not dog';# Dog;
That sounds unrelated to this conversation, but I think isa() should
continue to represe
