At 9:30 AM +0200 10/21/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Jason Gloudon wrote:The vtable PDD refers to type_keyed returning the type of the *PMC*. This isn't accurate given the question. Should we change the PDD ?
As we are now (almost) able to generate packed arrays of chars, shorts ...., we should expand the type concept to not only the PMCs, but to all types.
Yep, I concur. Negative numbers for non-PMC types is fine.
For plain PerlHash PMCs, yes, they should be PMCs only. The union went into them in a fit of enthusiasm and generality. :) More specialized aggregates can hold more specialized things, but I'm not sure we're going to have a need for something that really efficiently holds multiple fundamental data types. All-ints, floats, strings, or PMCs, sure, and certainly ones with tighter restrictions on what types of PMCs can be stored, but I doubt we'll see a general need to store, say, PMCs and ints.Shouldn't a Perl Hash be a homogenous data structure, ie. it should contain just PMCs ?
The current HASH_ENTRY holding a UnionVal and a type is more flexible, when native types are involved. So I'm not sure, if we should limit the value to be PMC only.
And after recent discussions WRT C# and JVM, we'll have a bunch of yet more native types in the future.Yeah, I think so. I'm not thrilled with it, but that's rarely made a difference in the past. Now shouldn't be any different.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
