At 01:44 AM 9/1/00 -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 04:59 PM 8/31/00 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> > >At 04:43 PM 8/31/00 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >>Okay, here's a list of functions I think should go into variable
> vtables.
> > >>Functions marked with a * will take an optional type offset so we can
> > >>handle asking for various permutations of the basic type.
> > >
> > >Perhaps I'm missing something... Is this for scalars alone? I see no
> > >arrays/hashes here.
> >
> > Gah. It's supposed to be for all types. I'll dredge together the bits for
> > arrays and hashes and wedge them in too.
>
>Why not make the scalar, array, and hash vtables each be separate RFCs? Or,
>am I over-engineering the problem?
There will be some separate pieces, but I'm not sure there's that much. A
lot of the entries are common across all the different base types.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
