Re: zero_type() & UNDEFINED and _typeof()

It would be quite unpikish to introduce values that are "false" but != 0. Three seconds after you implement that, someone will suggest that empty strings, mappings and arrays should also be "false".

/ Niels Möller ()

Previous text:

2003-01-23 00:40: Subject: Re: zero_type() & UNDEFINED and _typeof()

---

Hmm, I just came to realize a clear advantage with UNDEFINED wrt an existence operator: It makes it possible to combine the existence operation and the lookup.

It's a pity that it's equal to zero though. Compatibility aspects aside, it would be better if 0 != UNDEFINED (but both would still be false).

/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS