Re: RFC 263 (v1) Add null() keyword and fundamental data type

[Russ Allbery]

Glenn Linderman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Philip Newton wrote:

>> Having $seen{$word}++ turn $seen{$word} to undef is bad,

It doesn't "turn it to undef"; if you're using tristate semantics, it
leaves it as undef, because those are the semantics you've selected for
undefined values.

>> if (undef)++ assumes NULL semantics everywhere, hence "one more than
>> unknown" = "still unknown".

No one's proposing that.  People are proposing the ability to turn on NULL
semantics where you need it.

> Right.  Applying NULL semantics to undef would be bad.  The
> counterproposals to RFC 263, along the lines of "use tristate", seem to
> overlook this sort of situation.

I'm not overlooking it; I just don't agree with you.  There *is* a
difference.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>