On 4/15/02 10:24 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
> So the main reason that objects can function as hashes is so that the
> user can poke an object into an interface expecting a hash and have it
> "make sense", to the extent that the object is willing to be viewed like
> that.
Sure, by why should that be th
Rich Morin writes:
: At 5:26 PM -0700 4/13/02, Larry Wall wrote:
: >Well, Perl 5 doesn't really support compact arrays of known size, and
: >those are the only kind that are easy to think about when it comes to
: >vectorization.
:
: Actually, I can think of other possibilities. For instance, are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On 4/15/02 5:16 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
: > if we don't support this, people will be forever having to create Perl 6
: > adapter classes just so that they can make use of legacy Perl 5 code. :-(
:
: Okay, how about making it a pragma that's not enabled by default? So
On 4/15/02 5:16 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
> if we don't support this, people will be forever having to create Perl 6
> adapter classes just so that they can make use of legacy Perl 5 code. :-(
Okay, how about making it a pragma that's not enabled by default? So all
those Perl 5 porters can do the
Luke Palmer wrote:
> > More interestingly, it may also be that, by default, the C (i.e.
> > hash-look-up) method of a class invokes the accessor of the same name as the
> > key, so that:
>
> I'm a tad bit confused on the grounds of classes. Are we allowed to:
> %fred = new Flintstone;
No. Not
> > $foo.{bar_attr} = 1;
> >
> > This would help Perl 6 support legacy Perl 5 OO code
>
> How? Perl 5 code doesn't use ".", and if Perl 5 code has to be changed
> anyway, why not change it "all the way"?
Because changing:
$foo->{bar_attr}
to:
$foo.{bar_attr}
is a generic, pu
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 02:14:36PM -0700, Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
>
> --
>
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 18:27:11
> abigail wrote:
> >On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 04:42:07PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >> >
> >> > Why isn't
> >> >
> >> > if %foo {"key"} {print "Hel
On 4/15/02 1:16 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
> More interestingly, it may also be that, by default, the C (i.e.
> hash-look-up) method of a class invokes the accessor of the same name as the
> key, so that:
>
> $foo.bar_attr = 1;
>
> could also be written:
>
> $foo.{bar_attr} = 1;
>
> and still ha
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, subroutine variables *are* like underwear.
> But parameter names *aren't* like underwear.
> Because they're not (primarily) subroutine variables.
>
> So they're like the labels on the knobs, dials, and buttons of your
> favourite elctronic device.
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
> More interestingly, it may also be that, by default, the C (i.e.
> hash-look-up) method of a class invokes the accessor of the same name as the
> key, so that:
I'm a tad bit confused on the grounds of classes. Are we allowed to:
%fred = new Flintston
10 matches
Mail list logo
