On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 01:21:33PM -0500, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 01:12:46PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > with sugar on top?
> >
> >
> >
> > or i will beat you with a large clue bat
> >
>
> OK, shall I call it 'data'?
Still I really don't see the advantage.
> "JNP" == Joshua N Pritikin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> hmm, rare that someone doesn't think i am twisted. :-) i grok that
>> the magic part is separate from the actual reference and you can
>> use any ref type. but i feel dirty directly accessing the hash and
>> not through a met
On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 01:12:46PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> JNP> Your brain isn't twisted enough. The reference is a hash only
> JNP> because I made it that way by default. The event magic can be
> JNP> attached to any kind of reference. For example, see
> JNP> t/attach_to.t.
>
> "JNP" == Joshua N Pritikin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> but the direct access of the hash is not cool.
>> adding methods via a public and documented path is sorta ok. but
>> it still means that my new methods KNOWS the internals of the watcher in
>> that it will access the hash pa
On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 12:52:17PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> maybe. i will run it by damian to get his take anyhow. at least document
> that so i feel better about it.
OK
> but the direct access of the hash is not cool.
> adding methods via a public and documented path is sorta ok. but
>
On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 12:27:20PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> JNP> On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 12:05:44PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> JNP> What is wrong with this:
> >>
> JNP> $watcher->{data} = ...; #?
> >>
> >> that breaks the OO rules. one shoudl never assume knowledge ab
> "JNP" == Joshua N Pritikin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> then i am curious, what and how do you store the info for a watcher? if
>> not in the hash of $watcher, then what? a pseudohash? or closures?
JNP> Magic:
JNP> sv_bless(ref, stash);
JNP> mgp = &SvMAGIC(temple);
> "JNP" == Joshua N Pritikin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JNP> On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 12:05:44PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JNP> What is wrong with this:
>>
JNP> $watcher->{data} = ...; #?
>>
>> that breaks the OO rules. one shoudl never assume knowledge about the
>> inte
On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 12:05:44PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> JNP> What is wrong with this:
>
> JNP> $watcher->{data} = ...; #?
>
> that breaks the OO rules. one shoudl never assume knowledge about the
> internal stucture of an object. there should be a method/attribute for that.
B
> "JNP" == Joshua N Pritikin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JNP> What is wrong with this:
JNP> $watcher->{data} = ...; #?
that breaks the OO rules. one shoudl never assume knowledge about the
internal stucture of an object. there should be a method/attribute for that.
JNP> Yah, that's
On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 04:15:26AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> i have an idea we briefly covered a few weeks ago. i want a new
> attribute on all watchers called data (or something else) which is just
> used to hold whatever i want.
What is wrong with this:
$watcher->{data} = ...; #?
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
