Re: RFC 263 (v1) Add null() keyword and fundamental data type

[Glenn Linderman]

Philip Newton wrote:

> Having $seen{$word}++ turn $seen{$word} to undef is bad, if (undef)++
> assumes NULL semantics everywhere, hence "one more than unknown" = "still
> unknown".

Right.  Applying NULL semantics to undef would be bad.  The counterproposals to
RFC 263, along the lines of "use tristate", seem to overlook this sort of
situation.  They also overlook the beneficial debugging warnings that would be
lost for inappropriate use of uninitialized variables that would be lost if you
use undef for NULL.

--
Glenn
=====
Even if you're on the right track,
you'll get run over if you just sit there.
                       -- Will Rogers



____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
Download Now     http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Request a CDROM  1-800-333-3633
___________________________________________________________