Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>>> "SC" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> SC> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> >> > hashes can now take objects as keys and won't just stringify them.
> >>
> >> Correct. But I believe that's only if the hash has a property that marks
> >> its keys as being objects, not strings:
> >>
> >> my %hash is keyed(REF);
> >>
> >> And, even if that's the default, it still oughtn't apply to PAIRs.
>
> SC> So, uhm, what *does* happen if I do
>
> SC> $hash{$pair} = "foo";
>
> SC> Runtime error? And what if I do this:
>
> SC> my %hash is keyed(REF);
> SC> $hash{bless $pair, "NotAPairReally"} = "foo";
> SC> ...
> SC> for %hash.kv -> ($k, $v) {
> SC> bless $k, "PAIR";
> SC> }
>
> SC> Storing pairs as hash keys could lead to interestingly funky data
> SC> structures. I'm sad that this is being ruled out.
>
>
> i don't think he said that is ruled out. it is not the default
> behavior. i think if you declared it as keyed(PAIR) it would do what you
> want.
But that implies that *all* the keys will be pairs. Which is
(emphatically) not necessarily the case.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
