In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or have a "next" vtable function that takes a token and returns the next
> entry in the variable. Each iterator keeps its own "current token" and the
> variable's just responsible for figuring out what should get returned next.
>
> We could also have a "prev" entry to walk backwards, if we wanted.
Well that's the kind of interface that I'd expect a hash iterator to
be implemented in terms of, yes. As Chain pointed out though it doesn't
solve the problem of freezing the state of a hash which is what that
part of my RFC was attempting to do.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.compton.nu/
...Moderation in all things.
