Re^3: Unexpected effect of -w with undef

Hehehehe. I looked at it in befuddlement for a moment as well after I pasted the code in a terminal and it didn't print a thing. Then I went “Oh! Heh, he'll be really embarrassed when he reads the answer.” Don't sweat it though, we all have our moments. :-)

Makeshifts last the longest.

Comment on Re^3: Unexpected effect of -w with undef

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Unexpected effect of -w with undef by gellyfish (Monsignor) on Dec 22, 2004 at 16:43 UTC
What confused me is that `undef eq undef` is true, I guess indoctrinated by SQL hanDling of NULL I expect it to be undefined or false ... I guess this is not something that will get changed however. /J\	[reply] [d/l]
•Re^5: Unexpected effect of -w with undef by merlyn (Sage) on Dec 22, 2004 at 16:45 UTC
undef, when used as a string, acts like "". "eq" always wants string arguments. Hence, it is not a bug, it is a design. You're saying the same as `undef eq ""`. -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: Unexpected effect of -w with undef by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Dec 22, 2004 at 16:45 UTC
That is perfectly logical. `eq` compares strings. `undef` stringifies to a an empty string. Two empty strings are equal. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]