I was wondering why it's always a quiz to figure out whether a value is
empty or not. let's say I've
$var = {
array => [],
hash => {},
};
in perl I can say
do {...} if @{ $var{array} };
do {...} if %{ $var{hash} };
in template toolkit, passing $var to the template (var=>$var), this
wo
Casey West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said something to this effect on 01/24/2002:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 06:11:33PM +, Simon Wilcox wrote:
> :Should there be a .empty operator that returns true is empty where empty
> :means var is either null or undefined ?
>
> We already have something that *sh
darren chamberlain wrote:
> Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said something to this effect on 01/25/2002:
>
>>Andy Wardley wrote:
>>
>>>Perhaps the best solution is to have a '.size' method which works
>>>consistently
>>>across all data types:
>>>
>>> [% item.size %]# 1
>>> [% hash.size %]
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 05:28:59PM -0500, Mark Mills wrote:
> [% IF array.defined %] should tell you if something is null or non-existant in the
>stashhash.
Yep, if 'array' is defined then .defined returns true, even if it's a
reference to an empty array or empty hash.
> As people have said, D
Andy Wardley wrote:
[the reasoning for DWIM not working snipped]
> Perhaps the best solution is to have a '.size' method which works consistently
> across all data types:
>
> [% item.size %]# 1
> [% hash.size %]# scalar(keys %$hash)
> [% list.size %]# scalar(@$list)
+1, not
> :> We already have something that *should* do this. .defined().
> :>
> :> Just as in Perl, where defined(@foo) will only return true
> if @foo has
> :> elements. Problem is, array.defined doesn't do this correcty yet.
> :
> :$ perl -wle 'my @foo = (); print defined @foo'
> :defined(@array) i
Andy Wardley wrote:
>Perhaps the best solution is to have a '.size' method which works
>consistently
>across all data types:
>
> [% item.size %]# 1
> [% hash.size %]# scalar(keys %$hash)
> [% list.size %]# scalar(@$list)
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 12:38:25PM -0500, darren chamberlai
On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 01:51:34PM +0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
> IMHO, this is not right. .size for hash and array will show the number
> of elements in the datastructure, a scalar always has exactly 1 element
> (or we probably can say 0 elements if it's undef). So I'd say:
Damn, yes. Sorry. Th
> > As people have said, DWIM sez [% IF array %] should be true only if array
> > contains something more than nothing.
>
> As far as I know, there's no way to do this without re-writing large parts
> of TT. Even then, I don't think it's possible.
>
> The Perl code generated for
>
> [% IF a
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 03:56:20PM -0500, darren chamberlain wrote:
:
:Casey West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said something to this effect on 01/24/2002:
:> On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 06:11:33PM +, Simon Wilcox wrote:
:> :Should there be a .empty operator that returns true is empty where empty
:> :means
You know, when I first saw this I thought, "eh, it is like `exists' rather than
`defined', he just needs to put on the other pair of perl blinders" but now I'm not so
sure.
In his example below [% array %] happily dumps something like "ARRAY(0x81c1c88)".
If TT2 is just dumping the stringified
Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said something to this effect on 01/25/2002:
> Andy Wardley wrote:
> >Perhaps the best solution is to have a '.size' method which works
> >consistently
> >across all data types:
> >
> > [% item.size %]# 1
> > [% hash.size %]# scalar(keys %$hash)
> > [% l
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
> I was wondering why it's always a quiz to figure out whether a value is
> empty or not.
>
[snip example]
> so in case of array I must always remember to use:
>
> IF var.array.size;
>
> and in case of hash, I don't even remember what was the trick, I t
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 06:11:33PM +, Simon Wilcox wrote:
:
:Should there be a .empty operator that returns true is empty where empty
:means var is either null or undefined ?
We already have something that *should* do this. .defined().
Just as in Perl, where defined(@foo) will only return t
14 matches
Mail list logo
