In the description of &infix:<andthen>, S03:5446 says "If you wish to have the same semantics in the opposite order, use the with statement modifier."
This is inconsistent with the description of andthen, which says that andthen returns its first undefined argument. The with statement modifier returns an empty Slip if its argument is undefined.
I suspect the description should read: "For similar semantics in the opposite order, see the with statement modifier."
I'm against changing andthen to match with semantics; andthen fills a need that with does not.
In the description of
&infix:<andthen>, S03:5446 says "If you wish to have the same semantics in the opposite order, use thewithstatement modifier."This is inconsistent with the description of
andthen, which says thatandthenreturns its first undefined argument. Thewithstatement modifier returns an emptySlipif its argument is undefined.I suspect the description should read: "For similar semantics in the opposite order, see the
withstatement modifier."I'm against changing
andthento matchwithsemantics;andthenfills a need thatwithdoes not.See also https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=128586 .
Pm