With that operator there would be two different functions and no need for a special value. But anyway, it wouldn't be wise to remove the value for the reason in 9629831. Not to mention functions like resolv() etc.
Adding an existence operation could still be useful though, since it'd give a standardized way for a collection class to implement a check for existence without at the same time calculating the value.
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
Previous text:
2003-01-23 00:39: Subject: Re: zero_type() & UNDEFINED and _typeof()
What would you return from a function that currently returns UNDEFINED if UNDEFINED is removed then? If there is another value that works just as well, why is UNDEFINED useful in the current situation? If there is no such value, why is UNDEFINED not useful in a situation with an existence test operator?
/ Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!)