Buddy Burden wrote: > rather I use > > hash.list => [ $hash ] > > which seems to me to match better the way a scalar would convert.
Yes, I'm coming around to this way of thinking. It makes a lot of sense. And you can always do hash.each if you do want [ %$hash ]. > Here's my question about XS Stash changes: I saw in the documentation that > tie'd hashes don't really work with the XS Stash. (Took me a while to find > it, and I can't find it again now, but I did eventually come across it.) > Is this one of those things that's too horrifically bitchy to even think > about fixing, or just something nobody ever got around to? It's a bitchy job :-( In Perl, tied hashes and arrays behave more-or-less just like regular ones because the magic is hidden. But at the XS layer you have to code the magic yourself. From what I recall of last time I looked into it, it all gets messy very quickly. Having said that, adding Stephen's fallback checks to the XS Stash turned out to be relatively painless. I'd forgotten how much I enjoy writing C. It's just the Perl XS layer and all that worrying about reference counting that takes the fun out of it. I'm taking another look... A _______________________________________________ templates mailing list [email protected] http://lists.template-toolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/templates
