in reply to Re^2: Reference assessment techniques and how they fail
in thread Reference assessment techniques and how they fail
Good point, but there's actually another problem I forgot to mention. In a &{}, undef is code.
That's not true. Why is your eval always returning 1 unless it dies? With
sub is_code { no warnings qw( void uninitialized ); return eval { defined &{$_[0]} }; }
things look more reasonable. If undef were code, it'd be a serious bug.
--shmem
_($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q·/)Oo. G°\ /
/\_¯/(q /
---------------------------- \__(m.====·.(_("always off the crowd"))."·
");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re^4: Reference assessment techniques and how they fail
by kyle (Abbot) on Feb 17, 2008 at 19:50 UTC |