On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 09:36:13AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> I don't see any reason to return the string at all. It's almost never
> wanted, and you can always use .= or monkey but.
So: fail on failure bool::true on success? Pugs currently returns
bool::true.
Is there a way to tag a sub as fail
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 09:25:12AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
: On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 14:56 +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote:
:
: > (This introduces a potential semipredicate problem when looking at the
: > return value of a printed "0" or "" while not using "fatal", but the
: > code can use a defined guard.)
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 14:56 +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote:
> (This introduces a potential semipredicate problem when looking at the
> return value of a printed "0" or "" while not using "fatal", but the
> code can use a defined guard.)
I don't know if returning the printed string is the right approach,
What do &print and &say return?
"fail" would be great on errors. On success, they return "1" now, which
doesn't look very useful. How about returning the printed string? Unless
called in void context, of course.
(This introduces a potential semipredicate problem when looking at the
return value o
