On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 05:06:16PM -0400, James Mastros wrote:
> I don't see why this needs to be... either:
> 1) We clearly define in the beginning that if "Dog" is a basic type, then
> this has semi-magical properties.
> 2) We clearly define that basic types will always m/^[A-Z]+$/.
Or if clearly make basic types look *very* different from user-defined
types:
my Dog $spot;
my *int $i; # types that start with * are "basic"
> (It also makes it so that all-uppercase
> module names without any colons might behave oddly. This is bad for CGI,
> but if it becomes WWW::CGI, then it's all OK...)
I don't like this at all.
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: RFC 171 (v1) my Dog $spot should call a c... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v1) my Dog $spot should call... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v1) my Dog $spot should ... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v1) my Dog $spot sh... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v1) my Dog $spo... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v1) my Dog $spot should ... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 171 (v1) my Dog $spot sh... Piers Cawley
- RE: RFC 171 (v1) my Dog $spot should call a constructo... Evan Howarth
- Re: RFC 171 (v1) my Dog $spot should call a constructo... Michael G Schwern
- Re: RFC 171 (v1) my Dog $spot should call a const... James Mastros
- Re: RFC 171 (v1) my Dog $spot should call a c... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 171 (v1) my Dog $spot should call... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 171 (v1) my Dog $spot should ... Buddha Buck
- Re: RFC 171 (v1) my Dog $spot sh... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 171 (v1) my Dog $spot sh... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 171 (v1) my Dog $spot should ... Jonathan Scott Duff
