Re: RFC 136 (v1) Implementation of hash iterators

[Chaim Frenkel]

>>>>> "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

LW> Dan Sugalski writes:
LW> : I have had the "Well, Duh!" flash, though, and now do realize that having 
LW> : multiple iterators over a hash or array simultaneously could be rather handy.

LW> You can also have the opposite "Well, Duh!" flash and realize that most
LW> DBM implementations only support a single iterator at a time.  For some
LW> definition of support.  That's the main reason for Perl's current
LW> limitation.

I don't understand this.  

Are there DBM's that don't understand nextkey?

Isn't this the another version of having an indirection? DBM's that
don't allow multiple iterators means the porter to the DBM has to
supply a wrapper that does.

<chaim>
-- 
Chaim Frenkel                                        Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                                               +1-718-236-0183