Nathan Wiger wrote:
>
> "David L. Nicol" wrote:
> >
> > my dog $spot;
> > to
> > dog spot;
> >
> > If we only allow this where enough info is available to allocate dog-sized
> > pieces of memory directly, Perl can blaze through the code that deals with
> > dogs.
>
> I don't see what barewords gain us here. Who says that
They gain us compliance with the whims of the people who like barewords
for variable names. You may or may not find that to be a good thing.
I like flexibility.
We also gain a way of differentiating between a "Scalar" which refers
to a "type" which is something else and a lot of very late binding, and
a fixed-size object, an implementation detail that rfc 161 does not address.
These fixed-size "external" objects would not subclass Scalar, and they
could be easily differentiated if they were barewords. From a API point
of view they are crippled scalars.
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kansas City Perl Mongers will meet Sept. 20th at 7:00 in
Westport Flea Market Bar & Grill http://tipjar.com/kcpm
