--- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Right, we just can't do the 'undef' thing. OK, so let me see if this > is right yet: > > my Int @a is default(2); > @a[5] = 5; > > @a[4]; # 2 (autofilled) > @a[5]; # 5 > @a[6]; # 2 (out-of-bounds) > > undef @a[5]; # undefining the element sets it to the default > @a[5]; # 2 > > @a[5] = undef; # same as above > @a[5]; # 2
undef. I feel like the duck in those AFLAC commercials. undef! undef!! @a is an array of Int (not int) and can store undef, so no error occurs when you make the assignment. But now I, the programmer, am saying that of my own volition I want an undef in there, not a 2. If I wanted @a[5] to take on the default value, I'd say so: C<@a[5] = @a.default;> > my int @a is default(2); > > @a[4]; # 2 (autofilled) > @a[5]; # 5 > @a[6]; # 2 (out-of-bounds) > > undef @a[5]; # 0 (Warning: using undef in int context, autoconv > to 0) Like delete @a[5]. Sets value to @a.default; > @a[5] = undef; # 0 (Warning: using undef in int context, autoconv > to 0) Frankly, I think that this should be a compile time error, while $b = undef; @a[5] = $b; should be a runtime warning. > @a[5]; # 0 > > @a[5] = 0; # nothing special about this > @a[5]; # 0 > > Can everyone buy that? Sure. =Austin
