John Siracusa wrote: > Okay, this part has me confused. And rightly so: it was a screw-up. I lost track of whether I was keeping the property on the value or on the node reference and ended up doing both. Interestingly, the code would still have *worked* since the (originally unset) property on the node reference would have returned C<undef> which would undergo the usual boolean conversion in the C<if>, and the usual promotion to zero in the numerical context of the increment. Anyway, a patch is winging it's way to Simon even as I type. Thanks for pointing out the snafu, John. Damian
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 Dan Sugalski
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 Simon Cozens
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 John Siracusa
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 Edward Peschko
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 Nathan Torkington
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 Simon Cozens
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 Damian Conway
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 Brent Dax
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 Mark Koopman
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 Larry Wall
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 Damian Conway
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 John Siracusa
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 Simon Cozens
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 Damian Conway
- 'is' and action at a distance Edward Peschko
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 Ariel Scolnicov
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 Nathan Torkington
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 Carl Johan Berglund
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 Bart Lateur