On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 01:59:46AM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 06:28:28PM -0400, Miko O'Sullivan wrote: > > From: "Larry Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > : ? - force to bool context > > > : ! - force to bool context, negate > > > : + - force to numeric context > > > : - - force to numeric context, negate > > > : ~ - force to string context > > > > > > We're obviously missing the "force to string context, negate" operator. > > :-) > > > > Mr. Wall, may I be excused? My brain is full. Oh, I have to stick it out > > with everyone else? OK, um.... > > > > Just so I understand... why do we need "force to blah context" operators at > > all? Are we planning on doing a lot of context forcing? Isn't "a lot of
> The negate operators we have already: > > perl -e '$x = "0"; print !$x' > perl -e '$x = "10.000"; print -$x' Here is something that maybe you'd forgotten: $ perl -lwe '$x = "Good"; print -$x' -Good $ perl -lwe '$x = "-Good"; print -$x' +Good $ perl -lwe '$x = -"Good"; print -$x' +Good $ perl -lwe '$x = "+Good"; print -$x' -Good Unary plus is actually irrelevant: $ perl -lwe '$x = +"Good"; print -$x' -Good Nicholas Clark -- Brainfuck better than perl? http://www.perl.org/advocacy/spoofathon/
