Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2010
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 12:24:36PM +0000, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> I don't think the point is that we should *guarantee* that FETCH will
> only be called once per "logical access". But that we shouldn't make
> any guarantees *at all*.
>
> I.e. explicitly document that if you write a tie class you shouldn't
> depend on how many times FETCH and friends are called, since they may
> be called by the core at unexpected times, and those times may change
> without warning in future releases.
Well, that may be the easy way out, but does that improve the usefulness
of the language? I'm sure it makes it easier for a language implementation
if
f () OP g ()
does not make any promises how often f() and g() are called when evaluating
the expression. But one has to question whether that's useful for an imperative
language.
IMO, if $x and $y are tied,
$x OP $y
should just be a shortcut for
(tied ($x) -> FETCH) OP (tied ($y) -> FETCH)
I don't think many people will argue you should write f() and g() in such a
way that Perl is free to call f() and g() as many times as it pleases
when writing
f () OP g ();
And I fail to see why tied variables should be except.
Abigail
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next