Until reading Conway's "Object Oriented Perl"
http://www.manning.com/Conway/
(section 4.3, pp 126-135) I hadn't heard about pseudo-hashes. I now
desire a data structure with non-numeric keys, definable iteration
order, no autovivification, and happy syntax. (And, of course,
fast-n-small :-) Having Conway's blessing is nice, and perldelta for
5.6 says "Pseudo-hashes work better" (with details). But it also says
http://perldoc.com/perl5.6/pod/perldelta.html
> NOTE: The pseudo-hash data type continues to be experimental.
> Limiting oneself to the interface elements provided by the
> fields pragma will provide protection from any future changes
In addition to such faint praise, I'm also seeing damnations, such as
the Perl6 RPC "Pseudo-hashes must die!" and
Matt Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:44:04 +0100 (BST)
> Psuedo hash references are badly broken even in 5.6. Anyone who's
> done extensive work with them (or tried to) can tell you that.
Which deters. (As does
> Instead, write a class for your objects, and use arrays internally.
> Define constants for the indexes of the arrays.
which appears laziness-deficient :-)
I'm also _not_ seeing messages of the form, "Yes, we used phashs to
implement our telepathic subsystem, which services 4.2 zillion users
every day. We love them."
Being an empiricist (and a wimp :-), I'd like to know:
* Is anyone out there using pseudo-hashes in production code under
mod_perl?
* Is anyone now using (under mod_perl) something they consider to be
superior but with similar functionality and interface?
If possible reply directly to me as well as the list (I'm digesting),
and TIA, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
