Bad idea. See my multitudinous posts on why. Briefly:
1) can't use null and undef together
2) not extendable to 29 versions of null, when SQL defines them
Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Graham Barr wrote:
> >
> > If you want an operator to act differently on some piece of data then a pragma
> > is the way to do it.
>
> I was thinking about this on the way to work. As much as I don't like
> conflating undef and null, I dislike even more the idea of the 200 pages
> in Learning Perl that will have to now be devoted to why these two:
>
> $name = undef;
> $name = null;
>
> Are not the same thing.
It only takes a few pages, and a few truth tables to explain NULL. It should only
take a few pages and a few examples, to explain the difference between undef and
null.
> If everyone's in agreement, what I'll do is redraft the RFC to say Perl
> 6 should include a "use tristate" pragma which obeys blocks:
>
> $a = undef;
> $b = 1;
> $c = $a + $b; # 1
> {
> use tristate;
> $d = $a + $b; # undef
> }
> $e = $c + $d; # 1
>
> Thoughts?
That is useless. It is an attempt to pack 2 data values, null, and undef, into the
same 1/2 bit [1 => number, 0 => either undef or null, depending on no/use tristate].
> -Nate
--
Glenn
=====
Even if you're on the right track,
you'll get run over if you just sit there.
-- Will Rogers
_______________________________________________
Why pay for something you could get for free?
NetZero provides FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
