Bernhard Graf wrote: > Matt S Trout wrote: > >> On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 10:25:16PM +0200, Bernhard Graf wrote: >>> So since find() is not designed to return lists, to be consistent >>> it should always return a single value: either a row object or >>> undef. >>> >>> Objections? >> I'm now convinced. >> >> Patch and test please, if you get 'em in by the end of the week we >> can try it for the 08 rc cycle and see if it breaks anybody's code. > > Looking at the code brings me to this question: > > Shouldn't next() and single() return undef instead of empty list for > "not found" too?
I could be wrong... but isn't there some magic in there to make things
like this DTRT instead of looping forever:
while (my $i = $parent->relname->next) {
};
instead of
my $children = $parent->relname;
while (my $i = $children->next) {
};
Maybe that's caching magic instead of empty list vs. undef scalar magic...
-=Chris
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ List: http://lists.rawmode.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class Wiki: http://dbix-class.shadowcatsystems.co.uk/ IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/trunk/DBIx-Class/ Searchable Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
