Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2000
At 03:34 PM 5/22/00 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote: > >But the cases that I'm really interested in are where you want to export > >constants and be sure that they can't be messed up: > >The trend over the last few decades has been to design computer >languages that enforce a state of paranoia. You're expected to >program every module as if it were in a state of siege. Certainly >there are some feudal cultures where this is appropriate, but not >all cultures are like this. > >Specifically, Perl's culture is not. True, but not the entire picture; it also appears to be permissible within the Perl culture to provide the means for enforcing paranoia as long as it isn't mandatory. I adduce perltoot on the subject of Closures as Objects: >Nothing under the sun will allow anyone outside the executing method >to be able to get at this hidden data. Well, nearly nothing. You could >single step through the program using the debugger and find out the >pieces while you're in the method, but everyone else is out of luck. > >There, if that doesn't excite the Scheme folks, then I just don't know >what will. Translation of this technique into C++, Java, or any other >braindead-static language is left as a futile exercise for aficionados of >those camps. -- Peter Scott Pacific Systems Design Technologies