Nathan Torkington wrote: > > Do you mean that when we write: > > my int $intVal = 0; > > it gets turned into OO stuff? Yeah, that's the thinking. > my int $intVal = 0; > > any more? No, egads! <violent vomiting> > I'd rather than any "variables are represented by objects" magic > be done behind the scenes. I don't see the advantage of making the > user do all the work. Bingo, ditto. All the way. 100%. -Nate
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/Migrati... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/Migration Path Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/Migration P... Matt Youell
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/Migrati... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/Mi... Matt Youell
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/Migration Path Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/Migration Path Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/Migration Path Steve Fink
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/Migration P... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/Migration P... Nathan Wiger
- Nathan Wiger