Re: RFC 188 (v1) Objects : Private keys and methods

[Damian Conway]

   > Why can't we just apply the same warnings on hashes as we do on
   > variables in Perl?  Maybe a new lexical pragma:
   > 
   >         no autoviv;             # any autovivification carps (not just
   >                                 # hashes)
   > 
   >         no autoviv 'HASH';      # no new keys may spring into existence on
   >                                 # any hash from this point forward

I don't appose these, but I don't think they solve the problem.
For a start they're compile-time, not run-time.


   >         no autoviv '%hash';     # same but for a specific hash
   >         no autoviv '@array';    # same but for a specific array

These won't work, since most of the hashes were interested in
controlling autovivification on are anonymous (blessed) ones.


   > Regardless, I feel that "no autovivification" and "private-ization"
   > are orthogonal and should be treated as such in the languge.
   > 
   >         private @person{'fname','lname'};  # make these private
   >    freeze %person;                         # no new keys
   > 
   > But that's two keywords rather than one (and the second keyword isn't
   > that great for those people who already use FreezeThaw ;-)

I think that would prove annoying. Though I certainly don't oppose some
separate method to shut off autovivification (which C<private> would
then be considered to call automatically).


   > P.S. BTW, I used Text::Autoformat for the first time on this very email.
   > Thanks Damian!

You're most welcome. I note that you didn't use it on the P.S. itself,
as Autoformat would have given you:

   > P.S. BTW, I used Text::Autoformat for the first time on this very
   >      email. Thanks Damian!

As, indeed, it just did! ;-)


Damian