attriel wrote:
So ... with the discussion of "what if i really wanted to put an undef in
there b/c it's not just that i haven't defined it but rather that it
really isn't defined. I KNOW it's not defined, and i'm now explicitly
saying it's undefined as opposed to before when i was implicitly
suggesting that i didn't know what it was and used a default 'unknown'"
discussion ...
What we really need is:
@a[2] = undef but undef;
or, possibly (more tongue-in-cheek-y)
@a[2] = undef but seriously;
so the ... property? would say "you have a default, maybe, but i don't
care. this is REALLY undef"
is that possible? aside from it being disturbing to write "undef but
undef" :o
--attriel
(the first suggestion is serious, but the syntax is flawed; the second
suggestion has better syntax but is tongue-in-cheek suggested ... )
What about:
undef @a[2];
or possibly even (although I would argue that undef should remain a unary
operator only):
@a[2].undef();
Joseph F. Ryan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
