Erik Steven Harrison:
# >I think that, if Perl can determine the type with virtually no
# >ambiguity, it should autovivify.
#
# Actually, this behavior has already (mostly) been decided over in P6
# language. It was decided (and I agree) that the Perl 5 behavior of
Can you give me a link or a thread name or something?
# autovivifying references to the basic data types is the incorrect
# behavior, leading to a lot of bugs when dealing wityh complex data
# structures. So no autovifiying an untyped $undefined_var[$foo]
Why? It's pretty obvious that you want an array, and the normal array
Perl 6 provides is a good default.
If this is the case, why should we allow C<my @foo> or C<[qw(anon
array)]> without a type? After all, they might *really* want a
different type of array!
My understanding was that Perl 6 is not abandoning the DWIM principle.
When did this change?
(Sorry if this sounds like I'm attacking you. I'm not--I'm just
attacking your opinion. :^) )
--Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
@roles=map {"Parrot $_"} qw(embedding regexen Configure)
Wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in
New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. And radio operates
exactly the same way. The only difference is that there is no cat.
--Albert Einstein (explaining radio)
