Bryan C. Warnock sniped: > > > 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. > > What? You didn't test it before you posted it? For shame! ;-) Of course, I tested it! As I explained: Interestingly, the code still *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. The point is that (as in Perl 5) neither of these two cases of undef promotion trigger a warning, so there was nothing to alert me to the fact that the initialization of the value was redundant! ;-) Damian
- 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
- 'is' and action at a distance 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
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 Carl Johan Berglund
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 Austin Hastings
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 Simon Cozens
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 Dan Sugalski
- Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2 Austin Hastings