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)()
At 07:02 PM 12/7/00 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
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
Simon Cozens wrote:
=head2 Implementation Language
C++ gives us OO and headaches, is wildly non-portable due to a lack of
decent implementations, and we don't have enough experience of it. C's
portable and everyone knows it, but it's a swine for doing OO things.
Don't forget we can
Oh boy, it's OO syntax nargery time again. *sigh*.
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 10:51:14AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
@array-length
%hash-keys
Simply keeping @arrays and %hashes as buckets for SV's wouldn't let you
do this.
I don't think that's true. At all.
An "SV" would really just
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 10:51:14AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Don't forget we can mix-and-match C/C++ to some degree
for added portability!
--
If computer science was a science, computer "scientists" would study what
computer systems do and draw well-reasoned conclusions from it, instead of
At 07:55 PM 12/6/00 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
Oh boy, it's OO syntax nargery time again. *sigh*.
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 10:51:14AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
@array-length
%hash-keys
Simply keeping @arrays and %hashes as buckets for SV's wouldn't let you
do this.
I don't think
Simon Cozens wrote:
Oh boy, it's OO syntax nargery time again. *sigh*.
I think it would be cool
Good for you. This is internals design; perl6-language is over there ---
and the "ph33r mY |ewl dr3am 5inta" phase is supposed to be over now
anyway.
Cool! Thanks alot for the useful
