> If array syntax really is a good analogy to database
> access (it's not)
Agreed. So long as you are talking about Perl 5's arrays.
I disagree, if you are talking about 2 dimensional structures.
If you don't think a two dimensional structure is a good
basic fit with a lot of database access, what do you
suggest IS a good fit?
> array (or hash, you don't seem to care)
Records have named fields so one dimension is like a hash.
> Get started now - Perl 5's..
...arrays are one dimensional.
> tie and overload support should be more than sufficient.
Aiui, overload won't get me past the one-dimensionality
of Perl 5's arrays. Without a native 2d syntax, the win
from tying isn't significant.
> On the other hand, if Perl's array syntax isn't a good fit for
> database access (bingo) then you propose we change
> our array syntax to be a better fit.
I don't think it's reasonable to say I propose you change
something that hasn't yet been defined. Rather, it is
precisely because you haven't yet defined the MD array
syntax that I thought it worth at least considering how it
parallels db data BEFORE you define it.
