So I thought of a serious problem with part of this RFC. The bit
about using indirect object syntax...
> Instead, this RFC proposes that C's operation become much more
> fundamental, simply translating functions via the existing indirect
> object syntax:
>
>tie Transaction %t
Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> So I thought of a serious problem with part of this RFC. The bit
> about using indirect object syntax...
>
> There's a nasty inconsistency there. Consider the following.
>
> package Foo;
> sub lock {
> flock $_[0], LOCK_EX;
> }
> lock $trans
Michael Fowler wrote:
>
> > =head3 Merge C, C, and C into C
>
> 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 C's operation become much more
> > fundamental, simply translating functions via the exist
> > It may make sense to pass a leading argument to TIE which is the type
> > of variable being tied.
> >
> > tie Some::Class $foo, @args;
> >
> > would produce:
> >
> > TIE('SCALAR', 'Some::Class', @args);
Or, better still, pass a reference to the actual variab
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 04:00:30PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > Normally, the Foo::lock() subroutine in the current package will be
> > called. However, if %trans is a tied hash to a class which defines a
> > lock() method (let's call it Lock::Ness) the meaning of the program
> > radically and u
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 01:31:39PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> Or, better still, pass a reference to the actual variable being tied.
Good idea.
> Also notice that I suggested the TIE be called as a method,
> so that it can be inherited if necessary (maybe you had that idea
> already???)
The
Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> >sub lock { print "Hello!" }
> >$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
> > 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
