Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from June 2001
> If array syntax really is a good analogy to database > access (it's not) Agreed. So long as you are talking about Perl 5's arrays. I disagree, if you are talking about 2 dimensional structures. If you don't think a two dimensional structure is a good basic fit with a lot of database access, what do you suggest IS a good fit? > array (or hash, you don't seem to care) Records have named fields so one dimension is like a hash. > Get started now - Perl 5's.. ...arrays are one dimensional. > tie and overload support should be more than sufficient. Aiui, overload won't get me past the one-dimensionality of Perl 5's arrays. Without a native 2d syntax, the win from tying isn't significant. > On the other hand, if Perl's array syntax isn't a good fit for > database access (bingo) then you propose we change > our array syntax to be a better fit. I don't think it's reasonable to say I propose you change something that hasn't yet been defined. Rather, it is precisely because you haven't yet defined the MD array syntax that I thought it worth at least considering how it parallels db data BEFORE you define it.Thread Previous | Thread Next