>We adopt C base types, and C structure syntax.
THE HORROR! THE HORROR!
C type declarations are pretty universally despised. And why
do you want to get so unnaturally chummy with the machine? That
seems pretty hamstringly.
In Class::Struct there's already a more perlish way of doing
"struct
>The existing pack and unpack methods depend upon a simple
>grammar which leads to opaque format specifications,
Well, can lead. "f c4" is easy, but the big ones aren't.
>which are
>often difficult to get right, and which carry no information
>regarding variable names.
>A more descriptive gra
>Tom Christiansen wrote:
>> C type declarations are pretty universally despised.
>By whom?
>This is news to me. I have always thought that the C type declaration
>is a concise and platform-independent way of declaring a packed
>structure, and effectively hiding implementa
Here was my old demo/proposal, such as it was.
--tom
$buff = "\0" x rusage->sizeof();
syscall(&SYS_getrusage, &RUSAGE_SELF, $buff) && die "getrusage: $!";
$ru = rusage->new_from_buffer($buff);
# or
$ru = rusage->new();
$ru->unpack($buff);
# or
@fields = rusage->unp
>> >The problem is that you can tie() an array, but an object is a scalar.
Yes, Python unifies these.
>> >Also, there are many array operations (push, pop, etc) still not
>> >supported by tie.
Eh? Either that's no longer true, or we're doing the time warp again.
--tom
>Right you are. I'm still living in the 20th century :-)
So are all of us -- just give it a few months, though. :-)
--tom
If you can no longer grow hashes or arrays on demand, does this
extend to strings not being able to get bigger, and to integers not
being able to become floats?
--tom
>Tom Christiansen wrote:
>>
>> If you can no longer grow hashes or arrays on demand, does this
>> extend to strings not being able to get bigger, and to integers not
>> being able to become floats?
>>
>> --tom
>Exactly. What do you think :closed shoul
>Still think C and C are cuter. :-)
Except that that pair looks like "munge" and "emunge" (and probably
sounds like them too in certain accents :-), which are actually
synonyms of each other. :-(
--tom
