At 06:08 PM 4/20/2001 -0300, Filipe Brandenburger wrote:
>At 03:27 PM 20/04/2001 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>At 02:13 PM 4/20/2001 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>>> > o Comparison operations
>>> > "<", "<=", ">", ">=", "==", "!=", "<=>",
>>> > "lt", "le", "gt", "ge", "eq", "ne", "cmp",
>>
>>I'm thinking that we're going to have one cmp-style vtable comparison
>>function for strings and one for numbers. Anything else and people can go
>>override the parser if they really need to.
>
>I'd rather be flexible on the low-level and have `default' or `catch-all'
>functions that call the cmp-style function than have to `trick' the
>language by modifying the parser to do what we want. But that's really not
>my choice. I only think implementing backwards-compatible `use overload'
>without these entries would be nasty...
You're thinking at both too high and too low a level, I think. (I've been
working through what you've written, but there's rather a lot of it)
It might be best if everyone thought of the interpreter as essentially
language-neutral. Some stuff is appropriate for the interpreter (basically
the vtable stuff) while other things like the perl-source-visible bits of
overloading are more the province of the parser.
>I don't see much consistency problem on this level. This is supposed to be
>the interface for working on Perl guts. Who is there is supposed to know
>what she's doing...
That is an enourmously fair statement. I want to compartmentalize things so
there's a limit to what's required for overloading (or anything else) but
there's no substitute for knowing what has to be done.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
