On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:57:53PM +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote: > On 2013-06-22 18:40, H. S. Teoh wrote: > > >Yeah that one made my eyes glaze over. I still have trouble wrapping my > >brain around the strange syntax of is(), and why its diverse uses have > >been shoehorned into deceptively similar syntax. > > Isn't quite a lot of the is-expression features undocumented? [...]
Really? Well, even if so, the cases that *are* currently documented share a lot of syntax, but aren't necessarily related in a way that the syntax might imply. This is very confusing. One example that comes to mind is using is(T _ == U) instead of is(T == U). I'm guessing most people don't even know what the difference is, or why a dummy identifier _ has to be added. T -- Let's call it an accidental feature. -- Larry Wall