We've been kind of sloppy with variables and values so far--not too
surprising as perl 5 was, and many languages (like C) don't make much
of a distinction, and the distinction doesn't much matter even where
it does exist.
We can't do that any more, unfortunately. That's something of a pity,
as it
At 4:57 PM +0200 10/19/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
struct {
can;
has;
isa;
union {
scalar_vtable;
aggregate_vtable;
object_vtable;
};
VTABLE;
Rather than a union, there'd be a set of pointers to various vtable pieces.
But a scalar (PerlInt) doesn't hav
In perl.perl6.internals, you wrote:
> A "thing" has three parts, a name (which is optional), a container,
> and the contents of the container.
[ ... ]
> Well, first it means we need to conceptually split "variables" into
> three parts, rather than two as we have been.
Do you have a more verbose
At 10:49 AM +0200 10/18/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
In perl.perl6.internals, you wrote:
A "thing" has three parts, a name (which is optional), a container,
and the contents of the container.
[ ... ]
Well, first it means we need to conceptually split "variables" into
three parts, rather th
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:49 AM +0200 10/18/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
In perl.perl6.internals, you wrote:
Do you have a more verbose description of variable/value separation?
Sure. Aggregates are a good one. For example, let's assume you have an
array that can only hold real objects. Th
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 4:57 PM +0200 10/19/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
[ Vtable union ]
Well... the problem is with references. Larry's declared that a
reference must act identically to its referent if used in the right
context. We could force an explicit deref, but I'd rather not. Treatin
