I only vaguely recall the discussions a while back about what smart-matching against Booleans should do. IIRC, there are two positions, and a good argument for either side:
C<$foo ~~ True> means C<?$foo>; C<$foo ~~ False> means C<! ?$foo> or C<$foo ~~ True> means C<True>; C<$foo ~~ False> means C<False> The first of these adds expressiveness to given/when, and behaves the intuitive way when both the RHS of a match is a Boolean-valued variable (I would intuitively expect C<$bool1 ~~ $bool2> to do Boolean equality). The second means that the default case of a while can be syntactic sugar for C<when (true)>, and I see that we went for the latter on those grounds. However, if we make the Whatever star on the RHS always match, we can make C<default> equivalent to C<when (*)>, reminiscently of a shell script, and we can also make C<$bool1 ~~ $bool2> do the obvious thing. I don't immediately see any big wins for being able to say C<$foo ~~ *>, nor any big loses for it no longer falling through to MMD. Any thoughts? -- "Twelve? Who needs twelve? Couldn't we make do with six?" -- Lew Grade, <keyid 885b170d> trying to cut production costs on 'Jesus of Nazareth' <http://surreal.istic.org/> "The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer." Henry Kissinger, June 1972
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
