On 12/6/02 4:41 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> my PersonName $name = .new(...);
> my FormalStr $s = $name;# "Dr. William P. Smith"
> my InformalStr $s = $name;# "Bill"
>
> Whether that is good, bad, or indifferent I leave to the OO Police.
I'm not even deputized, but I call foul: exces
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 01:08 PM, Piers Cawley wrote:
He notes that VisualWorks Smalltalk makes the distinction between
'displayString', for the user oriented stringification and
'printString', for the programmer oriented.
One could imagine a scenario in which a user could accomplish an
> This is a bit of an oversimplification. $foo and @foo do not always
> behave the same, even if $foo and @foo refer to the same array object.
> In particular, $foo doesn't behave like @foo in a list context.
> Scalars must continue to behave like scalars in list context, even
> if they're interna
Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 01:28 AM, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
>>> Array(0x1245AB)
>>>
>>> Personally, I like this format. It's succinct, informative, and tells
>>> you enough to do identity testing.
>>
>> I like it too, but I thought everyone el
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 10:40:18AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: If an aggregate and a reference to an aggregate are going to behave
: the same, which is what Larry's indicated in the past, then
: stringifying a reference should be the same as stringifying its
: referent.
This is a bit of an ove
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 01:28 AM, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Array(0x1245AB)
Personally, I like this format. It's succinct, informative, and tells
you enough to do identity testing.
I like it too, but I thought everyone else hated it :)
I think people like it fine, but many people don't
At 6:36 PM -0500 12/5/02, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
By default, references should not stringify to anything "pretty", they
should stringifiy to something useful for debugging. Heck, even perl5
style should be fine. Not only is this handy, but also prevents
problems with circular referencing data str
Joseph F. Ryan:
# Brent Dax wrote
#
# >To tell you the truth, I don't consider arrayrefs references
# anymore.
# >They're just Array objects that don't happen to be in @whatever
# >symbols. I don't know if this is the official view, but that fits my
# >brain better.
# >
#
# So you're saying t
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 04:28 AM, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Brent Dax wrote
To tell you the truth, I don't consider arrayrefs references anymore.
They're just Array objects that don't happen to be in @whatever
symbols.
I don't know if this is the official view, but that fits my brain
bette
Brent Dax wrote
To tell you the truth, I don't consider arrayrefs references anymore.
They're just Array objects that don't happen to be in @whatever symbols.
I don't know if this is the official view, but that fits my brain
better.
So you're saying that classes should stringify to a pretty-pr
Joseph F. Ryan:
# >Why? Isn't the pretty form more generally useful?
# >
#
# I don't think so; I'd think it to be annoying to have type
# more code in order to specify a more cocise form; if I need
# to dump a structure, I'd prefer to do it manually.
I think it's useful to be able to say @arra
Brent Dax wrote:
Joseph F. Ryan:
# By default, references should not stringify to anything
# "pretty", they should stringifiy to something useful for
# debugging. Heck, even perl5 style should be fine. Not only
Why? Isn't the pretty form more generally useful?
I don't think so; I'd think
Joseph F. Ryan:
# By default, references should not stringify to anything
# "pretty", they should stringifiy to something useful for
# debugging. Heck, even perl5 style should be fine. Not only
Why? Isn't the pretty form more generally useful?
# is this handy, but also prevents problems wit
13 matches
Mail list logo
