At 11:54 PM 10/5/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS For the internals, though...
DS This would be very useful, and it's a feature I'd really like to
implement.
DS Basically you're asking for pre-computed, indirect, shared hash keys.
This
DS
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS For the internals, though...
DS This would be very useful, and it's a feature I'd really like to implement.
DS Basically you're asking for pre-computed, indirect, shared hash keys. This
DS sounds like a Good Plan to me.
Why precomputed? Any
On 09/27/00 Ken Fox wrote:
Dave Storrs wrote:
It isn't terribly clear to me either
Well, he does give a couple references that would clear it up.
X11 Atoms are well documented.
saying is that you can qs() a method name, get a "thingie" out, store the
thingine in a scalar, and then
At 03:42 PM 10/2/00 +0200, Paolo Molaro wrote:
On 09/27/00 Ken Fox wrote:
Dave Storrs wrote:
It isn't terribly clear to me either
Well, he does give a couple references that would clear it up.
X11 Atoms are well documented.
saying is that you can qs() a method name, get a
At 05:37 AM 9/27/00 +, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
Perl should adopt scheme-like symbols, both at the language level
and at the internals level.
The explanation of this isn't that clear for me. (I have no scheme
experience at all)
It sounds like a sort of dynamically-created version of C's
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 05:37 AM 9/27/00 +, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
Perl should adopt scheme-like symbols, both at the language level
and at the internals level.
The explanation of this isn't that clear for me. (I have no scheme
experience at all)
It
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 03:07:19PM -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
Dan was right to think of this as a C enum equivalent. The only real
differences being that you don't have a chance to define the integer
mapping and that the printable identity of the symbol is remembered by
the run-time.
I don't yet
