So I thought of a serious problem with part of this RFC. The bit
about using indirect object syntax...
Instead, this RFC proposes that Ctie's operation become much more
fundamental, simply translating functions via the existing indirect
object syntax:
tie Transaction
Michael Fowler wrote:
=head3 Merge CTIESCALAR, CTIEHASH, and CTIEARRAY into CTIE
I'm not so sure about this.
I'm not either anymore. This will probably be removed from the next
version.
Instead, this RFC proposes that Ctie's operation become much more
fundamental, simply translating
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 04:00:30PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Normally, the Foo::lock() subroutine in the current package will be
called. However, if %trans is a tied hash to a class which defines a
lock() method (let's call it Lock::Ness) the meaning of the program
radically and
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 01:31:39PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Or, better still, pass a reference to the actual variable being tied.
Good idea.
Also notice that I suggested the TIE be called as a method,
so that it can be inherited if necessary (maybe you had that idea
already???)
The tie
Michael G Schwern wrote:
sub lock { print "Hello!" }
$trans = new Lock::Ness;
lock $trans; # $trans-lock
That's not right.
You're correct. Sorry for not double-checking my examples.
the same reasons I've already pointed out. You don't want adding a
method to a class to
Also notice that I suggested the TIE be called as a method,
so that it can be inherited if necessary (maybe you had that idea
already???)
The tie *can* currently be inherited.
Yes, I was aware. It's just that you wrote:
tie Some::Class $foo, @args;
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 09:22:39PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Regardless of my huge error above, this doesn't change the fact that
this is exactly what tie() does currently in Perl 5. That is:
tie @a, 'Matrix';
push @a, $stuff;
Now changes the meaning of push() in the current
