3Re: (localtime)[3] vs. ((localtime)[3])

(Any news from the letter you sent to p5p about this? (reference: (print (...) interpreted as function)))

(jeffa)

(
L-LL-L--L-LL-L--L-LL-L--
-R--R-RR-R--R-RR-R--R-RR
B--B--B--B--B--B--B--B--
H---H---H---H---H---H---
(the triplet paradiddle with high-hat)
)

Comment on 3Re: (localtime)[3] vs. ((localtime)[3])

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: (localtime)[3] vs. ((localtime)[3]) by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Sep 24, 2003 at 08:37 UTC
Initialize only two persons reacted, one was in favour of removing it, one was against removing it. So, I provided a patch, and that got more reactions. Some in favour, some against. That's of course enough reaction to not have the patch accepted. Rafael suggested that it's possible to inspect the op-tree and determine whether 'print' is used as an operand in a boolean function, and to issue the warning only then. After a well Hugo responded we though that was a good idea, and if someone would implement it, he would accept it. So, there is a tiny chance that in a few years, the warning won't give so many false positives anymore. I also got the impression that the people who were in favour of keeping the warning are people who don't write a space between the function name and the opening paren, while among the people in favour of removing the warning were people who do put a space there. But I have the patch, and from now on, I'll patch any perl I install so that it won't issue the warning. Abigail	[reply]
Re: 3Re: (localtime)[3] vs. ((localtime)[3]) by BUU (Prior) on Sep 24, 2003 at 06:32 UTC
Turning in to a lisp monk?	[reply]