Re: object(x) rethink
- Posted by Gary Shingles <eu at 531pi.?o?nz> Mar 02, 2008
- 730 views
jacques deschĂȘnes wrote: > > But for the coherance of the language this must be a valid declaration and > must > behave like any other datatype validation. > There is nothing to change in the language here. All language that use generic > type behave the same way. I think, if I've understood Andy correctly, he is simply proposing that object(x) returns true in all cases except when x has not been assigned a value, in which case it returns false. I agree with this as x is not truly an object until it has a value, until then it is only a notion. Perl has this concept with if defined(x), and even undef(x) to make x be "unassigned". The question as to whether to change the behaviour of the object type test comes down to (IMHO) whether it is easy to do, whether a significant amount of code relies on the current behaviour... oh and of course someone to actually change/test/document the code :) Gary