Piers Cawley writes:
: Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > Hang on, now I'm a little confused - I thought that hashes were supposed
: > to keep their % sigil. So shouldn't that be %foo.keys or %foo.{keys}?
: > But then that would then violate the uniform access principle because
: > hash/key access has a different syntax from object/method?
%foo is just a typed reference varaible. $foo works just about as well.
: $foo = %hash; # Take a reference to %hash;
I'd say "Copy a reference", since I think of %hash as a reference already.
: $foo.{keys} # get the value keyed by 'keys' in the hash refered
: # to by $foo.
: $bar = Object.new # Make an object
: $bar.{keys} # Get the value of $bar's '$.keys' instance
: # variable.
Mmm. I think it always calls the virtual method, which might or might
not map directly to $.keys, depending on how fancy the accessors get.
If you want a particular type's method regardless of the actual type of
the object, you have to do as in Perl 5 and say
$bar.This::Type::keys()
: I think that the '.' is optional in this case too...
Yes, as long as there's no whitespace before it. I imagine some style
guides will require the dot for that reason. I can just see some poor
schmuck walking out of a job interview because the company requires
dots on all hash subscripts. :-)
Larry
