[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perrin Harkins) wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> (section 4.3, pp 126-135) I hadn't heard about pseudo-hashes. I now
>> desire a data structure with non-numeric keys, definable iteration
>> order, no autovivification, and happy syntax. (And, of course,
>> fast-n-small :-) Having Conway's blessing is nice
>
>Pseudo-hashes do not have Conway's blessing. We hired him to do a
>tutorial for our engineers a few omnths back, and he railed about how
>disappointing pseudo-hashes turned out to be and why no one should ever
>use them. I had already reached the same conclusion after I saw that
>everyone would have to remember to say "my Dog $spot;" every time or the
>whole thing falls apart.
At the last YAPC he talked about the various unsatisfactory approaches
and finally seemed to advocate for his Tie::SecureHash module. Among
other things, it allows '__private', '_protected', and 'public' data
members. I'm not sure whether it supports explicit declarations of key
names, but I bet it could be added easily if not.
I haven't used the module, but wanted to pass along the info.
------------------- -------------------
Ken Williams Last Bastion of Euclidity
[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Math Forum
