And indeed, they ought to die. Or be reimplemented. Or something,
but quite simply, don't use them. They'll break, they won't dwim,
and chances are they won't play nice with future/past versions of
Perl. Forget they even exist.
Details?
I'm using them with no problems in 5.005_03 (the real
I had already reached the same conclusion after I saw that
everyone would have to remember to say "my Dog $spot;" every time or the
whole thing falls apart.
Falls apart? How?
If you want something reasonably close, you could do what a lot of the
Template Toolkit code does and use arrays
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, John Hughes wrote:
And indeed, they ought to die. Or be reimplemented. Or something,
but quite simply, don't use them. They'll break, they won't dwim,
and chances are they won't play nice with future/past versions of
Perl. Forget they even exist.
Details?
I'm
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, John Hughes wrote:
I had already reached the same conclusion after I saw that
everyone would have to remember to say "my Dog $spot;" every time or the
whole thing falls apart.
Falls apart? How?
Because you miss one out and its a very difficult to find bug in your
(exists doesn't work).
Neither does delete.
Ok. But what should it do? What does it do for an array?
And overloading doesn't really work properly.
Details?
And reloading modules with phashes doesn't work right.
I steer clear of reloading, almost anything screws up.
And sub-hashes
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, John Hughes wrote:
(exists doesn't work).
Neither does delete.
Ok. But what should it do? What does it do for an array?
But we're talking about hashes! At the very least it should make it so
that exists() returns false.
And overloading doesn't really work
At 11:36 23/01/2001 +0100, John Hughes wrote:
Neither does delete.
Ok. But what should it do? What does it do for an array?
perldoc -f delete
"In the case of an array, if the array elements happen to be at the end,
the size of the array will shrink to the highest element that tests true
for
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 10:06:13AM +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
The only gain might be in a large DOM tree where there may be
thousands of objects. But then you're really better off using an
array based class instead (as I found out).
This is getting a bit off-topic, but I'm empirically found
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Robin Berjon wrote:
At 11:36 23/01/2001 +0100, John Hughes wrote:
Neither does delete.
Ok. But what should it do? What does it do for an array?
perldoc -f delete
"In the case of an array, if the array elements happen to be at the end,
the size of the array will
At 12:50 23/01/2001 +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
Thats only 5.6+ though. So its only useful for internal applications (if
at all).
True, but we've been using 5.6 (built from AS source) in production for
quite a while now very happily. Also, I'm seeing more and more customers
having it or ready to
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, John Hughes wrote:
I had already reached the same conclusion after I saw that
everyone would have to remember to say "my Dog $spot;" every time or the
whole thing falls apart.
Falls apart? How?
If you forget the "Dog" part somewhere, it's slower than a normal
Until reading Conway's "Object Oriented Perl"
http://www.manning.com/Conway/
(section 4.3, pp 126-135) I hadn't heard about pseudo-hashes. I now
desire a data structure with non-numeric keys, definable iteration
order, no autovivification, and happy syntax. (And, of course,
fast-n-small :-)
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well you've already seen I'm a detractor :-)
* Is anyone now using (under mod_perl) something they consider to be
superior but with similar functionality and interface?
Yes, a class which is a blessed array.
--
Matt/
/||** Director
At 18:05 22/01/2001 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the Perl6 RPC "Pseudo-hashes must die!" and
And indeed, they ought to die. Or be reimplemented. Or something, but quite
simply, don't use them. They'll break, they won't dwim, and chances are
they won't play nice with future/past versions of
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(section 4.3, pp 126-135) I hadn't heard about pseudo-hashes. I now
desire a data structure with non-numeric keys, definable iteration
order, no autovivification, and happy syntax. (And, of course,
fast-n-small :-) Having Conway's blessing is nice
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perrin Harkins) wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(section 4.3, pp 126-135) I hadn't heard about pseudo-hashes. I now
desire a data structure with non-numeric keys, definable iteration
order, no autovivification, and happy syntax. (And, of course,
16 matches
Mail list logo
