Re: RFC 159 (v1) True Polymorphic Objects

2000-09-06 Thread Bennett Todd
2000-08-28-18:47:06 Tom Christiansen: It strikes me as a bit reminiscent of (one reason) why Larry didn't make a+b work on strings, since then while with numbers, a+b and b+a would be the same, with strings they would not be, and we have these rather deeply held convictions about such

Re: RFC 188 (v1) Objects : Private keys and methods

2000-09-06 Thread Tom Christiansen
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 19:08:18 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote: exists (sometimes causes autovivification, which affects Ckeys) That's not technically accurate--exists never causes autovivification. print exists $hash{foo}{bar}{baz}; use Data::Dumper; print Dumper

Re: RFC 188 (v1) Objects : Private keys and methods

2000-09-06 Thread Damian Conway
print keys %hash, "\n"; exists $hash{key}{subkey}; print keys %hash, "\n"; Or did that get fixed when I wasn't looking? No, the - operator has not been changed to do lazy evaluation. That's not required. All that is necessary is for Cexists nodes in the op

Re: RFC 188 (v1) Objects : Private keys and methods

2000-09-06 Thread Damian Conway
Why can't we just apply the same warnings on hashes as we do on variables in Perl? Maybe a new lexical pragma: no autoviv; # any autovivification carps (not just # hashes) no autoviv 'HASH'; # no new

Re: RFC 188 (v1) Objects : Private keys and methods

2000-09-06 Thread Bart Lateur
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 19:08:18 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote: exists (sometimes causes autovivification, which affects Ckeys) That's not technically accurate--exists never causes autovivification. print exists $hash{foo}{bar}{baz}; use Data::Dumper; print Dumper