Juerd,
On Jan 19, 2006, at 4:21 PM, Juerd wrote:
Juerd skribis 2006-01-19 22:18 (+0100):
Could you live with @foo being an array, and @foo in scalar context
returning a reference to that array? And with arrays being
interfaces to
underlying Arrays, which are objects, which makes arrays non-objects
that can be used *as* objects?
This turns "everything is an object" into "everything can be used with
OO syntax", which I think is more true
Alternatively and simultaneously, "everything represents an object".
Well, if "everything is NOT an object", then the synopsis need to
reflect this. I was under the impression that everything was an
object, some of that "object-ness" is more hidden in some than
others, but it does not mean they are not still objects.
My point though was not to debate OO theory, but to reconcile a
problem in the Synopsis and it's description/usage of &bless.
Currently it is broken, and we need to fix it.
One fix, yes, is to say "arrays and hashes are not objects, they are
literals as in perl 5". Personally I am not sure that is a good
approach, and seems to contradict more of the Synopsis then it agrees
with.
Stevan
