On 12/20/06, Jonathan Worthington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Patch attached that cleans up the code to return PMCNULL instead of
undef anyway. I don't really want to apply this until I hear a design
decision...
The design decision is: let's be consistent and use null.
jerry gay wrote:
let's
On 12/20/06, Jonathan Worthington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 20. Dezember 2006 05:59 schrieb Will Coleda:
>
>> Are Hash and Array supposed to have different results on unset keys?
>>
>
> The .Undefs returned by Arrays are IMHO and unfortunate leftover of he e
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 10:59:34PM +, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >Am Mittwoch, 20. Dezember 2006 05:59 schrieb Will Coleda:
> >
> >>Are Hash and Array supposed to have different results on unset keys?
> >>
> >
> >The .Undefs returned by Arrays are IMHO and unfo
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 20. Dezember 2006 05:59 schrieb Will Coleda:
Are Hash and Array supposed to have different results on unset keys?
The .Undefs returned by Arrays are IMHO and unfortunate leftover of he early
PerlArrays. We've managed to change the return result of h
Am Mittwoch, 20. Dezember 2006 05:59 schrieb Will Coleda:
> Are Hash and Array supposed to have different results on unset keys?
The .Undefs returned by Arrays are IMHO and unfortunate leftover of he early
PerlArrays. We've managed to change the return result of hashes to .Null, so
this should b
Are Hash and Array supposed to have different results on unset keys?
$ cat foo.pir
.sub main
load_bytecode 'dumper.pir'
$P1 = new .Hash
$P2 = $P1['bork']
_dumper ($P2)
$P1 = new .ResizablePMCArray
$P1[200] = 'zdrasti'
$P2 = $P1[201]
_dumper ($P2)
$P2 = $P1[100]
_dumper ($P2)
