Jon Lang wrote:
> Right. Still, there are times when duck-typing, flawed as it is,
> might be exactly what is needed to resolve the problem at hand. I
> forget who or in what context, but I vaguely recall someone posting an
> article here that proposed the use of £ in signatures as a modifier to
Darren Duncan wrote:
> Larry Wall wrote:
>>
>> Or going the other direction, perhaps we're missing a primitive that
>> can produce a data structure with the type information stripped, and
>> then eqv might be able to determine structural equivalence between
>> two canonicalized values.
>
> Often yo
Larry Wall wrote:
Or going the other direction, perhaps we're missing a primitive that
can produce a data structure with the type information stripped, and
then eqv might be able to determine structural equivalence between
two canonicalized values.
Often you still want to know the declared type
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:09:49PM -0600, David Green wrote:
: On 2010-05-26, at 1:53 am, Moritz Lenz wrote:
: >> The tests might need fixing too, since I'm not sure whether eqv (as used
by is_deeply) would cover that, or whether it would take a separate test in
bool context.
: >
: > probably th
On 2010-05-26, at 1:53 am, Moritz Lenz wrote:
>> The tests might need fixing too, since I'm not sure whether eqv (as used by
>> is_deeply) would cover that, or whether it would take a separate test in
>> bool context.
>
> probably the latter.
I guess it would have to -- that is, "but" creates a
