Larry Wall skribis 2004-06-24 11:29 (-0700): > This is Perl 6. Everything is an object, or at least pretends to be one. > Everything has a .boolean method that returns 0 or 1. All conditionals > call the .boolean method, at least in the abstract. (The optimizer is > free to optimize the method call away for known types within known > conditionals, of course. It had better, or evaluating the truth of > .boolean will end up calling .boolean again... :-)
I didn't know about the (to-be) existence of .boolean. It makes things fun and easy, though. However, is the name "boolean" final? I would prefer "true", perhaps with a corresponding "false". That is, assuming that there will be $foo.defined and $foo.empty. Hm. I wonder where (and if) I read about .empty. Can't find it. > not when the data becomes false. Plus we'll have the // operator.) I'll be wanting a length-or. Perl 6 will make coding it easy enough to not need it in the core. But the operator needs a symbol. I'm assuming infix:"" will work. But will there be a way to ask Perl if syntax can be used without introducing possible ambiguity? A circumfix ++ operator won't work for several reasons. What will Perl do if you try defining one? Please don't say that picking a random sequence of at least 5 different unicode dingbats will be the best way to be sure :) Juerd
