Hey,
Since you wouldn't expect an object to stringify or numify why expect pairs
to? I'm not sure i see any value in thatm, $pair.perl.say would be the best
way to output one anyway.
my $pair1 = (a => 2);
my $pari2 = (b => 3);
say $pair1 + $par2; # Error: illegal stringification of pair.?
I know nothing, but couldn't users create there own pair class that does
what they want? Or extend the builting one to override operators they way
they want?
Just my 2 cents.
On 9/21/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-09-21 14:47 (+0000):
> > my $pair = (a => 42);
> > say ~$pair; # "a\t42"? "a\t42\n"? "a 42"?
> > say +$pair; # 0 (pairs aren't numbers)?
> > # 42?
> > # 0 ("a" is not a number)?
> > # 0 (~$pair can't be used as a number)?
> > say ?$pair; # true (because 42 is true)?
> > # true (because pairs are always true)?
> > FWIW, I'd opt for ~$pair to be "a\t42", +$pair to be +(~$pair) [1],
> > and ?$pair to be always true.
>
> Pairs are objects, thus references.
>
> I like your suggestions for ~$pair (though any separator except other \s
> characters would do) and ?$pair.
>
> I don't think +(~$pair) makes any sense, though. It's basically the same
> as +(~$pair.key). It's probably wise to avoid that $pair can be confused
> for its key or value. A good alternative is hard to find, though. I tend
> to prefer 1 at this moment (coincidentally, that's +?$pair).
>
>
> Juerd
> --
> http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
> http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
> http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
>
--
__________
Eric Hodges
