On 05/10/06, Jerry Hedden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> given my experience of ""-overloading, and given that
> tid() and the default stringification both return a unique
> id, I don't think I like the idea of adding ""-overloading
> to threads.
What specifically is wrong with ""-overloading?
Since I've verified that threads use overload fallback, probably less
than I thought.
> After all, == and != are already overloaded.
And how is that an argument AGAINST adding ""-overloading?
I see it as a supporting argument. IMHO, the fact that ==
and != are overloaded for threads, but "" is not, constitutes
a bug by omission. (BTW, I went over all the other overload
options, but didn't see that any of them made sense.)
but eq already works for threads equality, no ?
> I'd prefer the suggestion of Jonathan, having an import
> flag to enable the stringification behaviour.
Eww. Adding a flag to turn ON behavior that should have
been there in the first place is yucky. (At least to my
tastes which, of course, may just be all in my mouth.)
Yes; and in bleadperl we have the "feature" pragma to turn on cool
features. That's called preserving backwards compatibility, and Perl 5
has a reputation being good at it...
