|Just another Perl shrine|
I gotta ask this. If v5.12 arrived with !0 returning 4, and the OP code broke, would the fix be to the OP code, or to v5.12?
Also, "dangerous" is usually reserved for things that threaten life or limb. Under any circumstance where code could possibly be dangerous in that sense, any such fundemental change to the implementation, documented or not, would surely be detected during the obligatory, extensive system and regression testing that any software in such a life critical application would have to undergo?
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
In reply to Re: !0 is not necessarily 1 (was Re: Secret Perl Operators: the boolean list squash operator, x!!)