--- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 01:01 PM, Nicholas Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 12:30:41PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote: > >> --- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> my int @a is Array( default => 5 ); > >>> @a[0] = undef; > >> > >> This should cause a blip of some kind. If storing an explicit > undef > >> (as > >> opposed to "undef but 0" or C<$v = undef; @a[0] = $v;> there > should be > >> an exception. If storing an implicit undef: convert to int (IOW: > 0) > >> and > >> emit a warning. > > Hmm. I don't have a strong preference either way, but I'm not sure > why > (given C<my int @a>): > > @a[ undef ] > > C<undef> should be autoconverted to 0 with warning, but in: > > @a[0] = undef; > > C<undef> should _not_ be autoconverted to 0, but instead trigger an > exception. > > They're both in C<int> context, unless we want to make a special "int > > being used as an array index" context that's different from normal > C<int> context. Seems like C<undef> should be treated like 0 (plus > warning) in numeric context either everywhere, or nowhere. (?)
I agree. "Warning: Using undef as array index" would be a nice message - probably save a bunch of debugging. =Austin
