Re: Comparing Object Identity (was: Re: Stringification of refere nces (Decision, Please?)) [x-adr][x-bayes]

2002-12-13 Thread Luke Palmer
> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:26:28 -0500 > From: John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On 12/12/02 4:01 PM, Larry Wall wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 12:40:52PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote: > > : So we'll _have_ to write $obj.*id when we mean $obj->UNIVERSAL::id; > > > > If you wish to be prec

Re: Comparing Object Identity (was: Re: Stringification of refere nces (Decision, Please?)) [x-adr][x-bayes]

2002-12-13 Thread Luke Palmer
> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:07:21 -0800 > From: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > It's not clear what .can should return for a multimethod, either. > You'd have be able to return results like: "yes int can mult, but > only if the second argument is an int or num". Basically, .can > has a bad syn

Re: Comparing Object Identity (was: Re: Stringification of refere nces (Decision, Please?)) [x-adr][x-bayes]

2002-12-12 Thread James Mastros
On 12/12/2002 4:01 PM, Larry Wall wrote: On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 12:40:52PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote: : And what will: : : main.*can('foo') : : result in? These days it's "Main", not "main". And it's a module, not a class, so probably it fails, unless someone can think of something useful

Re: Comparing Object Identity (was: Re: Stringification of refere nces (Decision, Please?)) [x-adr][x-bayes]

2002-12-12 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 01:50:37PM -0800, Brent Dax wrote: : Larry Wall: : # Hmm. Those don't really stand out enough. Maybe we should go with : # OBJECT:: and GLOBAL:: just for a little more visual punch. : : How about CORE:: instead of GLOBAL::? This helps stick with tradition : and minimize

RE: Comparing Object Identity (was: Re: Stringification of refere nces (Decision, Please?)) [x-adr][x-bayes]

2002-12-12 Thread Brent Dax
Larry Wall: # Hmm. Those don't really stand out enough. Maybe we should go with # OBJECT:: and GLOBAL:: just for a little more visual punch. How about CORE:: instead of GLOBAL::? This helps stick with tradition and minimize the number of reserved packages. # : And what will: # : # : main.*c

Re: Comparing Object Identity (was: Re: Stringification of refere nces (Decision, Please?)) [x-adr][x-bayes]

2002-12-12 Thread John Siracusa
On 12/12/02 4:01 PM, Larry Wall wrote: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 12:40:52PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote: > : So we'll _have_ to write $obj.*id when we mean $obj->UNIVERSAL::id; > > If you wish to be precise, yes. But $a.id eq $b.id should work for most any > class that uses the the term "id" in t

Re: Comparing Object Identity (was: Re: Stringification of refere nces (Decision, Please?)) [x-adr][x-bayes]

2002-12-12 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 12:40:52PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote: : John Siracusa wrote: : > On 12/12/02 12:55 PM, Larry Wall wrote: : > > As for namespace pollution and classes that use .id in Perl 5, I : > > don't think it's going to be a big problem. Built-in identifiers : > > do not have a requi

RE: Comparing Object Identity (was: Re: Stringification of refere nces (Decision, Please?)) [x-adr][x-bayes]

2002-12-12 Thread Garrett Goebel
John Siracusa wrote: > On 12/12/02 12:55 PM, Larry Wall wrote: > > As for namespace pollution and classes that use .id in Perl 5, I > > don't think it's going to be a big problem. Built-in identifiers > > do not have a required prefix, but they have an optional prefix, > > which is C<*>. I think