Luke Palmer:
# There's no need for special methods or (gods forbid) more operators.
# Just:
#
# $obj1.id == $obj2.id
#
# That's what the universal Cid method is *for*.
#
# I rather like that. It's used for hashing by default (in
# absence of a stringification or .hash (?) method),
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 02:54:18PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After thinking about it a little more, I'll set myself on the yes
side. And propose either '===' or ':=:' to do it.
Definitely '==='.
Hopefully, this thread has been settled by Damian's
Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 10:36 AM, John Siracusa wrote:
Maybe AS_STRING and AS_STRING_DEBUG? Too long? DEBUG_STRING?
Are we married to the AS_* thing?
Not really -- whatever works. We also had .debug, .identity, and .id
proposed, for
Damian Conway writes:
There's no need for special methods or (gods forbid) more operators.
Just:
$obj1.id == $obj2.id
That's what the universal Cid method is *for*.
How universal are universal methods?
That is, can a programmer override .id() in a user-defined class? If so,
simply
On 12/12/2002 5:50 AM, Aaron Crane wrote:
Damian Conway writes:
There's no need for special methods or (gods forbid) more operators.
Just:
$obj1.id == $obj2.id
That's what the universal Cid method is *for*.
How universal are universal methods?
That is, can a programmer override .id() in
(This is a reply to a mail accidently sent to me personaly instead of
the list. Buddha, care to resend your other mail? I havn't quoted it
in total.)
On 12/12/2002 9:43 AM, Buddha Buck wrote:
James Mastros wrote:
Here's my basic defintion of ID: Two things should have the same ID
(resent as requested)
James Mastros wrote:
Here's my basic defintion of ID: Two things should have the same ID
if-and-only-if they will behave exactly the same, now and forevermore.
Thus, there should be one ID for all constants of the same value, which
is different from all constants of
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 12:20:18PM -0500, James Mastros wrote:
: (This is a reply to a mail accidently sent to me personaly instead of
: the list. Buddha, care to resend your other mail? I havn't quoted it
: in total.)
:
: On 12/12/2002 9:43 AM, Buddha Buck wrote:
:
: James Mastros 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 we can probably parse
$a.*id ==
On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 06:48 PM, Dave Storrs wrote:
Hopefully, this thread has been settled by Damian's pointing out the
existence of id(), but could I put in a strong vote against the use of
'===' for anything? It is far too easy to misread as ==, IMHO.
Yes, I think it's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
Which basically comes down to this: an id represents a location in
memory for any objects that don't override the .id method.
Aiee! No! Please don't let things override the address-in-memory method,
as that makes foo.id == bar.id comparisons dubious at
Michael Lazzaro:
# Piers wrote:
# I doggishly maintain my preference for treating stringification for
# output and stringification for debugging differently, but
# as long as
# I can specify an AS_STRING (sp?) method for a class, and
# _still_ get
# at a debugging version to print to other
At 2:28 PM -0800 12/11/02, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 02:15:40PM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 11:16 AM, Luke Palmer wrote:
This brings up something that's been on the tip of my toungue for
awhile. In many object-oriented languages
On 12/11/02 6:16 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
There's no need for special methods or (gods forbid) more operators.
Just:
$obj1.id == $obj2.id
That's what the universal Cid method is *for*.
I must have missed this (or forgotten it?) Any chance of it becoming .ID or
.oid or even ._id? I'm
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:21:35 -0500
From: John Siracusa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.20, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
On 12/11/02 6:16 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
There's no need for special
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
From: Dave Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:54:18 -0800
Organization: Fast-Chip inc.
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4920.2300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft
At 9:43 PM -0700 12/11/02, Luke Palmer wrote:
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
X-Sent: 11 Dec 2002 23:16:30 GMT
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:16:26 +1100
From: Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Accept-Language: en, en-us
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.20,
17 matches
Mail list logo
