On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 10:53:59PM +1000, Stuart Cook wrote:
: I'm not sure whether this behaviour is supposed to be changing.
It is. I think we decided to make the value undef, and the function
undefine(). (But these days most values of undef really ought to
be constructed and returned (or thro
Adrian Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Over the weekend I added some tests on 'undef' behaviour
> (t/builtins/undef.t):
>
> These behave as expected:
>
> eval_is('undef * 2', undef, 'undef * 2');
That's not what I'd expect. I'd expect it to return 0 and throw a warning
about numifica
Hi Stuart,
You (and Carl) are absolutely right... all these things are behaving as
they should. Cool! :-)
I'll fix the tests later on today.
Thanks,
Ade
Stuart Cook wrote:
>On 5/24/05, Adrian Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>eval_is('undef + 1', undef, 'undef + 1', :todo); # dies
>>
On 5/24/05, Adrian Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> eval_is('undef + 1', undef, 'undef + 1', :todo); # dies
In this case, you're expecting
(undef) + 1
but you're getting
undef(+1)
instead.
This is because 'undef' serves double-duty as both 'undefined value'
and 'prefix op for undefining vari
> eval_is('undef + 1', undef, 'undef + 1', :todo); # dies
> eval_is('1 + undef', undef, '1 + undef', :todo); # gives 1
I would expect these to both equal 1,
see perl5
>perl5 -le "undef $_; ++$_; print"
1
Hi,
Over the weekend I added some tests on 'undef' behaviour
(t/builtins/undef.t):
These behave as expected:
eval_is('undef * 2', undef, 'undef * 2');
eval_is('undef * undef', undef, 'undef * undef');
These don't (at least, according to my expectations...)
eval_is('undef + 1', undef, 'undef +
