On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 2:38 PM +0100 2/26/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: >Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> >> At 8:10 AM +0100 2/26/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: \> > > No, it won't. No code should ever assume an absolute offset. That in>> itself's broken. > >like t/pmc/objects.t?
I was waiting for you to pull that out. :) Yes, objects.t assumes some evil low-level knowledge of the internals.
Well, in part that's because classoffset wasn't implemented when I started writing the tests, so I had to use absolete offsets. Do you want me to rework it to be less evil?
Yeah, I think that'd be a good idea. I've this nasty feeling that sometime between 0.1.0 and 0.1.2 someone's going to end up adding in more attributes at runtime to the base object class...
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
