Dan Sugalski writes:
> I don't mind if someone overrides the vtable functions for a variable of a
> built-in type--a standard declaration of:
>
> my $foo;
>
> is really shorthand for:
>
> my generic_scalar $foo;
>
> more or less. If a variable gets its vtable functions messed with, well,
> that's OK. If + doesn't actually add, well, no biggie. I'd like to have
the
> optimizer not assume functionality on variables that have been overridden
> somehow. (So if $foo gets tied we stop assuming we know what + does, for
> example)
>
> The bigger thing I worry about is if someone does something odd like make
+
> short-circuit, or && not short-circuit. That's the sort of base behaviours
> I'd like written in stone someplace.
>
Would that really be a problem? Damian is writing an RFC that will propose
allowing '?' in a function prototype to indicate a lazily evaluated
parameter. If someone overloaded C<+> with a function that had a prototype
where the 2nd parameter was evaluated lazily, couldn't Perl notice this and
do the right thing?
