On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 09:22:25PM +0200, Moritz Lenz wrote: : Moritz Lenz wrote: : > Tests 34 to 36 were a bit overcritical: : > : > (0|undef && say "not ok 34") || say "not ok 34"; : > (0&undef && say "not ok 35") || say "not ok 35"; : > (0^undef && say "not ok 36") || say "not ok 36"; : > : > but are easily corrected. The rest seem fine to me. : : Easier said than done. : Question to p6l: do && and || autothread? Or do they collapse the : junction prior to evaluation? (I hope the latter, since I think it's : more dwimmy). : : Also do prefix:<?> and prefix:<!> collapse the junction?
I think it would be best if all boolean contexts collapse consistently, and I would consider all of those to be boolean contexts. More precisely, && and || are boolean on the left, but not on the right. Interestingly, ?& and ?| collapse both sides because they coerce both sides to boolean. Either that, or we make neither side collapse, if someone can come up with a use case for junctional booleans, though I suspect the same purpose can be served by +& and +| if you're careful only to feed it 1 or 0. So probably conceptual consistency is better here. Larry
