Re: RFC 39 (v3) Perl should have a print operator
[email protected] (Tom Christiansen) Wed, 06 Sep 2000 14:27:57 -0600
| Newsgroups | perl.perl6.language.io |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20078.968272077@chthon> |
>On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 18:37:11 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote: >>Those are not the semantics of print. It returns true (1) if successf<SNIP> >>false (undef) otherwise. You cannot change that. If I write print "0", it >>bloody well shan't be returning false. >Oh, why not? Does anybody actually *ever* check the return value of >print? Yes. > I think it's not as if we'd break a lot of code. Don't worry, Mercutio, 'tis but a small wound. >Problem is: if you need defined() to see if the print was succesful, you defined() is superstition. I said true and false. If I say true, I don't want you testing against 1. If I say false, I don't want you testing definedness. Most tests like this should be true or false. >cannot return what was printed as well. It's one thing or the other. So >you cannot have it both ways. I don't *WANT* it to return what it alleges to have printed. That's stupid, since I can always get that myself. I don't need it to tell me this! --tom