Re: OO AV/HV's and tie (was Re: Meta-design)

[Simon Cozens]

On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 03:11:33PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >I'm in favour of the exact opposite: an AV is "just" an SV-alike vtable
> >with array methods instead of scalar methods and a pointer to some
> >storage, (probably an array of SVs) and likewise an HV. That would allow
> >(array->length)() which seems to be what you want above.
> 
> Currently the only difference between accessing an AV's member's value, an 
> HV's member's value, or an SV's value is an extra argument to the vtable call.

I wasn't thinking about accessing values, (which obviously should be as you
say) but things like methods to implement $#array, keys %hash, and so on.

-- 
"He was a modest, good-humored boy.  It was Oxford that made him insufferable."