On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, John Hughes wrote:
> > I had already reached the same conclusion after I saw that
> > everyone would have to remember to say "my Dog $spot;" every time or the
> > whole thing falls apart.
>
> Falls apart? How?
If you forget the "Dog" part somewhere, it's slower than a norm
At 12:50 23/01/2001 +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>Thats only 5.6+ though. So its only useful for internal applications (if
>at all).
True, but we've been using 5.6 (built from AS source) in production for
quite a while now very happily. Also, I'm seeing more and more customers
having it or ready t
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Robin Berjon wrote:
> At 11:36 23/01/2001 +0100, John Hughes wrote:
> >> Neither does delete.
> >
> >Ok. But what should it do? What does it do for an array?
>
> perldoc -f delete
>
> "In the case of an array, if the array elements happen to be at the end,
> the size of the
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 10:06:13AM +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> The only gain might be in a large DOM tree where there may be
> thousands of objects. But then you're really better off using an
> array based class instead (as I found out).
This is getting a bit off-topic, but I'm empirically fou
At 11:36 23/01/2001 +0100, John Hughes wrote:
>> Neither does delete.
>
>Ok. But what should it do? What does it do for an array?
perldoc -f delete
"In the case of an array, if the array elements happen to be at the end,
the size of the array will shrink to the highest element that tests true
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, John Hughes wrote:
> (exists doesn't work).
>
> > Neither does delete.
>
> Ok. But what should it do? What does it do for an array?
But we're talking about hashes! At the very least it should make it so
that exists() returns false.
> > And overloading doesn't really wor
(exists doesn't work).
> Neither does delete.
Ok. But what should it do? What does it do for an array?
> And overloading doesn't really work properly.
Details?
> And reloading modules with phashes doesn't work right.
I steer clear of reloading, almost anything screws up.
> And sub-hashes
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, John Hughes wrote:
> > I had already reached the same conclusion after I saw that
> > everyone would have to remember to say "my Dog $spot;" every time or the
> > whole thing falls apart.
>
> Falls apart? How?
Because you miss one out and its a very difficult to find bug
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, John Hughes wrote:
> > And indeed, they ought to die. Or be reimplemented. Or something,
> > but quite simply, don't use them. They'll break, they won't dwim,
> > and chances are they won't play nice with future/past versions of
> > Perl. Forget they even exist.
>
> Details
> I had already reached the same conclusion after I saw that
> everyone would have to remember to say "my Dog $spot;" every time or the
> whole thing falls apart.
Falls apart? How?
> If you want something reasonably close, you could do what a lot of the
> Template Toolkit code does and use arr
> And indeed, they ought to die. Or be reimplemented. Or something,
> but quite simply, don't use them. They'll break, they won't dwim,
> and chances are they won't play nice with future/past versions of
> Perl. Forget they even exist.
Details?
I'm using them with no problems in 5.005_03 (the r
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perrin Harkins) wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> (section 4.3, pp 126-135) I hadn't heard about pseudo-hashes. I now
>> desire a data structure with non-numeric keys, definable iteration
>> order, no autovivification, and happy syntax. (And, of course,
>>
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> (section 4.3, pp 126-135) I hadn't heard about pseudo-hashes. I now
> desire a data structure with non-numeric keys, definable iteration
> order, no autovivification, and happy syntax. (And, of course,
> fast-n-small :-) Having Conway's blessing is ni
At 18:05 22/01/2001 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>the Perl6 RPC "Pseudo-hashes must die!" and
And indeed, they ought to die. Or be reimplemented. Or something, but quite
simply, don't use them. They'll break, they won't dwim, and chances are
they won't play nice with future/past versions of Pe
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well you've already seen I'm a detractor :-)
> * Is anyone now using (under mod_perl) something they consider to be
> superior but with similar functionality and interface?
Yes, a class which is a blessed array.
--
/||** Director and C
15 matches
Mail list logo