On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 12:32:47PM -0700, Henri Asseily wrote: > I see that the new todo list says: > > Add $h->swap_internal_handle($other_h) > > I submitted a simple patch a few days ago for set_internal_handle(). > Why would we "swap" instead of "set"? "swap" suggests that h becomes > other_h and vice versa.
swap_internal_handle idea predates set_internal_handle. > Is that the preferred operation? Was there some > discussion about that at the BoF? No. > I'm in dire need of that functionality for my DBIx::HA module, and I'm > trying to make sure that I don't have to rewrite my code when there's > an official release with a function that does that. It'll be set_internal_handle() and they'll probably be a get_internal_handle() (though tied(%$h) does that already :-) Tim.
