"Piers Cawley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > An object is a data type, as much as an array or hash is a data type, > > but that doesn't make an array an object. [insert obligatory "all men > > are Socratese" quote here) > > I really hope you're wrong here Dan. At least in that particular > case. Being able to inherit from Array or Hash or whatever as a > neater way of implementing, say, Tie semantics would be remarkably useful...
Let me suggest two interpretations of Dan's remark that seem reasonable to me: 1. The internal implementation for an array is an optimization beyond that of a generic object. This would not be visible to the programmer, so isn't important wrt the language. 2. There is a primitive "array" type that is promoted to an objectified Array class when needed. This would be analogous to the int/Int distinction for primitive numbers. This would be visible to programmers, but may be acceptable for the same reason as the int/Int types are. Of course, it's up to Dan to clarify his own intent: these are just my opinions. Dave.
