chromatic wrote:
On Monday 26 February 2007 13:50, Michael G Schwern wrote:
But what if isa() is broken or has side effects, hmm?
That's not the caller's problem. Fix the broken code. Don't break more code
trying to work around bugs.
I think the problem he's refering to is that if the
On 26/02/07, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please reconsider autobox.
I second this request.
autobox in on CPAN and works. Moreover, the intent of the work on
lexical pragmas was to enable people to write their own pragmas and
put them on CPAN. (*) So just use it.
Or, maybe you were
Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
On 26/02/07, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please reconsider autobox.
I second this request.
autobox in on CPAN and works. Moreover, the intent of the work on
lexical pragmas was to enable people to write their own pragmas and
put them on CPAN. (*) So
Yuval Kogman wrote:
Likewise with ref in boolean context, I almost never want the object
to be able to lie to me.
But if it has to work hard to lie, then does it matter?
Yeah, I'm with Yuval here. There seem to be a cold war going on here wrt
identifying an object.
In the beginning we used
On Monday 26 February 2007 13:50, Michael G Schwern wrote:
But what if isa() is broken or has side effects, hmm?
That's not the caller's problem. Fix the broken code. Don't break more code
trying to work around bugs.
That little mantra could have solved a whole lot of this mess.
And what
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 13:50:58 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Please reconsider autobox.
While I second that for the aforementioned reasons I have an off
topic one too:
That's the only way it'd get accepted. Something that devious has to
be in core to pass off as safe.
--
Yuval Kogman
