At 01:11 PM 1/1/2002 -0800, Sterin, Ilya wrote: > > From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > At 11:09 AM 1/1/2002 -0800, Sterin, Ilya wrote: > > >Ok, I understand that this hasn't been implemented due to > > the believe > > >that it's a dangerous feature (Programming Perl). But would > > it be ok > > >to enable/disable it with a specific pragma? > > > > Might happen. Larry's talked about it on and off, and if you > > have a special > > scalar type that's fine. Can't bang the hardware without > > something like > > this, and you can already sort of do it with pack and unpack. Sort of. > >It would be very useful (I'm being selfish here maybe). Might even be >sort of like pointer arithmetic (in disguise), though it would be used >for that right:-?
Nah, never used for that. Well, except for the bits of parrot written in perl/python/ruby, > > We may have a Pointer class in parrot when we ship. Or we > > might not. (Care > > to write one? :) > >Besides allowing to work with constant addresses, would it also allow >pointer arithmetic, or am I going to far with this? >I can take a shot, though wouldn't be for another week or two. I'll >contact you if I need more info on how far do we want the functionality >to expand. I can think of a number of different ways to do this. Different behaviour based on assignment/read types (integer read/write get/set the pointer address, string read/write get/set the data pointed to) would probably be A Bad Thing. Also what I'd be likely to do, but I think we've already established I do Bad Things. :) A method to change the address would probably be the best thing. Dan --------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk