On 5 Aug 2000 21:40:43 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
>It would be nice to be able to say
>
> @a = @b || @c
>
>instead of having to resort to
>
> @a = @b ? @b : @c
Would it? It looks like a small win, unless @b is actually a list
instead of just an array.
Currently, || is a scalar op
At 02:22 PM 8/26/00 +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> > It seems that it ought to be possible to evaluate something in a list
> > context and test whether there are any entries in the resulting list
> > without having to reevaluate the expression in a scalar context. The
> > work-around with the tri
At 06:59 AM 8/26/00 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
>[I know this is not your quote, but your quotee's quote]
>
> >> There is obviously no need to modify the behavior of the C<&&> operator.
>
>Is one wholly certain of this?
>
> DB<1> @c = (1..3)
> DB<2> @a = @b && @c
> DB<3> x @a
Tom Christiansen writes:
: It would appear that altering &&/|| on LHS context would entail,
: in the list assignment scenario, calling that operand in list context
: and then deciding whether it were true or not by some "intuitive"
: means (almost certainly by using whether its element count were
[I know this is not your quote, but your quotee's quote]
>> There is obviously no need to modify the behavior of the C<&&> operator.
Is one wholly certain of this?
DB<1> @c = (1..3)
DB<2> @a = @b && @c
DB<3> x @a
0 0
DB<4> x @b
empty array
It's hard to argue
Reply on laptop in wilderness (no network) holydays me void this message by
other messages sent in my absence. Ignore if so.
On 5 Aug 2000 21:40:43 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
>
> =head1 TITL
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
|| should propagate result context to both sides.
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 5 Aug 2000
Version: 1
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 45
