On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 03:41:27AM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Some of you may remember (and some wish we could forget) a ramble I
> posted about six months back about traffic lights and language design
> and all the weird ways we get meaning out of such a small # of
> symbols. One of the t
Piers Cawley writes:
: Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > Of course, that's not to say that the particular C that's returned on
: > failure-to-numerify mightn't have a property set that indicates the problem
: > was not-a-numeric in nature.
:
: Having more than one 'undef' value sound
Piers Cawley writes:
: If currying magic works in subroutine parameter strings then you can
: just do
:
: sub assert_with_func (&^sub is constant, $^expected is constant,
: $^got, $message)
: {
: &^sub($expected, $got) or die $message || $default_message
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course, that's not to say that the particular C that's returned on
> failure-to-numerify mightn't have a property set that indicates the problem
> was not-a-numeric in nature.
Having more than one 'undef' value sounds like a recipe for internals
mad
