At 11:05 PM 8/8/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>I agree with what Ken said completely:
>
> > Hey! That sounds like an implementation topic... ;) (The internals
> > should be able to handle this if the language wants it, right?)
>
>Let's get the ideas going. The internals might have some honest concerns
>that cause us to radically rethink this or dump it later. However, let's
>figure out what we want the language to do first, and figure out how to
>do it second.
Keeping the internals in mind is important when designing features, though.
I generally stay out of things I know won't be terribly onerous, but part
of my job as internals guy is to step in and say "Have you gone stark,
raving mad?!?" when something with serious repercussions is proposed. This
is one of those things. It means a lot more code to write (and debug) for
the things that return these objects, and that means parts of perl will be
slower, take longer to write, and take up more space.
I'm making no judgements on the utility of the RFC, mind. I'm just weighing
in on the technical side of RFC winnowing.
>Internals aside, I think if we could get the language to do this it
>would be a tremendous step forward. But that's just my opinion.
I don't think it's that big a deal, but people do have a tendency to do
lost of Neat Things with features that are unexpected.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
