On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote: > However, as you point out, there's no easy way to get the HASH(addr) > part. If this RFC is accepted, we might need a special function for that > (but I say stick it in Data::Dumper). Please don't worry about this. It's diving too deeply into what at this point should rightly be opaque internal details. (As are a bunch of other things on -language, generally speaking) Dan
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin stringifyi... Michael Mathews
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin strin... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin stringifyi... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin strin... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin stringifyi... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin strin... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin s... John Porter
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have built... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have b... John Porter
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin strin... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin s... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin s... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have built... John Porter
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have b... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have b... Hildo Biersma
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should h... John Porter
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have b... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have built... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have b... Michael Fowler