> >
> > Can you give me an example of the former?
> > I can't think of any off the top of my head.
>
> Scalar value @foo[$bar] better written as $foo[$bar], for one.
>
> If part of Perl's breeding is autovivication and interpretation of undef as
> 0 or "" in the appropriate context, why should Perl bitch at me if I use it
> as such? Why should I have to ask permission to do so?
Well, for one, your example is ill-considered. You are going to get
autovivification saying:
@foo[$bar] = 1;
just as much as you are going to get autovivification for:
$foo[$bar] = 1;
Hence I'd say that @foo[$bar] has NO INTRINSIC VALUE whatsoever.
Second, with the keyword empty (if it comes to pass) the reasons for
interpretation of undef as 0 and "" go away. Right now, things are a PITA
to get empty values:
my ($a, $b, $c, $d, $e) = ('') x 5;
With empty:
my ($a, $b, $c, $d, $e) = empty;
> I would rather say, and I think it would be more perlish to say, "I'm not
> feeling particularly perly today, can you check for anything clever, cause
> if there is, chances are it's a mistake."
Or how about "I'm feeling particularly lazy today, I think I'll sleep in. Lets
worry about any mistakes I might make another day."
For i maintain that any 'cleverness' that you might have that causes warnings
in perl6 will *probably* be a mistake.
Ed
