On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> However, as you point out, there's no easy way to get the HASH(addr)
> part. If this RFC is accepted, we might need a special function for that
> (but I say stick it in Data::Dumper).
Please don't worry about this. It's diving too deeply into what at this
point should rightly be opaque internal details. (As are a bunch of other
things on -language, generally speaking)
Dan
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin stringifyi... Michael Mathews
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin strin... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin stringifyi... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin strin... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin stringifyi... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin strin... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin s... John Porter
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have built... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have b... John Porter
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin strin... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin s... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin s... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have built... John Porter
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have b... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have b... Hildo Biersma
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should h... John Porter
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have b... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have built... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have b... Michael Fowler
