develooper Front page | perl.perl6.language | Postings from February 2005

Containers vs Objects.

Thread Next
From:
Rod Adams
Date:
February 15, 2005 12:26
Subject:
Containers vs Objects.
Message ID:
4.2.0.58.20050215140759.00a39148@cyclone.he.net

In my recent unsuccessful attempt to convert junctions into sets with their 
own container, perhaps the strongest argument against could be paraphrased 
as follows:

Everything about junctions or sets can be represented fully as an object, 
and objects are nicely stored in scalars, because it's simply one instance 
of a given class, in this case C<Junction>.

My question comes down to: so what makes Arrays and Hashes so special? As 
many pure-OO languages demonstrate, both can be fully represented as an 
object, and objects belong in Scalars. The obvious statement I expect to 
here is "Perl's always had Arrays and Hashes". While I'm not sure if they 
were there for Perl 1.0 (I started w/ Perl 4.xx), I do know that they 
certainly predate P5's objects and references. Therefore, there was no 
other way to create an array or hash. That is no longer the case.

In P6, we've even gone so far as to say that you can access an element in 
an array ref with C<$ref[1]>. I'm fairly sure you can call all the methods 
of the Array class on the $ref, letting you do C<$ref.pop> and all the 
other fun things we do with arrays. Similar things hold for hashes.

So I'm interested in hearing what pushes Arrays and Hashes over the edge 
for needing their own container and sigil, whereas Junctions/Sets do not.

-- Rod Adams


Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About