Joseph F. Ryan:
# Why? Isn't the pretty form more generally useful?
#
#
# I don't think so; I'd think it to be annoying to have type
# more code in order to specify a more cocise form; if I need
# to dump a structure, I'd prefer to do it manually.
I think it's useful to be able to say
Brent Dax wrote
To tell you the truth, I don't consider arrayrefs references anymore.
They're just Array objects that don't happen to be in @whatever symbols.
I don't know if this is the official view, but that fits my brain
better.
So you're saying that classes should stringify to a
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 04:28 AM, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Brent Dax wrote
To tell you the truth, I don't consider arrayrefs references anymore.
They're just Array objects that don't happen to be in @whatever
symbols.
I don't know if this is the official view, but that fits my brain
Joseph F. Ryan:
# Brent Dax wrote
#
# To tell you the truth, I don't consider arrayrefs references
# anymore.
# They're just Array objects that don't happen to be in @whatever
# symbols. I don't know if this is the official view, but that fits my
# brain better.
#
#
# So you're saying that
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 01:28 AM, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Array(0x1245AB)
Personally, I like this format. It's succinct, informative, and tells
you enough to do identity testing.
I like it too, but I thought everyone else hated it :)
I think people like it fine, but many people
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 10:40:18AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: If an aggregate and a reference to an aggregate are going to behave
: the same, which is what Larry's indicated in the past, then
: stringifying a reference should be the same as stringifying its
: referent.
This is a bit of an
Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 01:28 AM, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Array(0x1245AB)
Personally, I like this format. It's succinct, informative, and tells
you enough to do identity testing.
I like it too, but I thought everyone else hated it :)
I
This is a bit of an oversimplification. $foo and @foo do not always
behave the same, even if $foo and @foo refer to the same array object.
In particular, $foo doesn't behave like @foo in a list context.
Scalars must continue to behave like scalars in list context, even
if they're internally
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 01:08 PM, Piers Cawley wrote:
He notes that VisualWorks Smalltalk makes the distinction between
'displayString', for the user oriented stringification and
'printString', for the programmer oriented.
One could imagine a scenario in which a user could accomplish
On 12/6/02 4:41 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
my PersonName $name = .new(...);
my FormalStr $s = $name;# Dr. William P. Smith
my InformalStr $s = $name;# Bill
Whether that is good, bad, or indifferent I leave to the OO Police.
I'm not even deputized, but I call foul: excessive use
A big issue that still remains with literals is the stringification of
objects and references. In an effort to get the behaviors hammered
down, here are a few ideas:
First off, references:
By default, references should not stringify to anything pretty, they
should stringifiy to something useful
Joseph F. Ryan:
# By default, references should not stringify to anything
# pretty, they should stringifiy to something useful for
# debugging. Heck, even perl5 style should be fine. Not only
Why? Isn't the pretty form more generally useful?
# is this handy, but also prevents problems with
Brent Dax wrote:
Joseph F. Ryan:
# By default, references should not stringify to anything
# pretty, they should stringifiy to something useful for
# debugging. Heck, even perl5 style should be fine. Not only
Why? Isn't the pretty form more generally useful?
I don't think so; I'd think
13 matches
Mail list logo
