develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2017

Re: Should we consider locked hashes a failed experiment?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Steffen Mueller
February 2, 2017 21:08
Re: Should we consider locked hashes a failed experiment?
Message ID:
On 02/02/2017 08:19 PM, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> I can't tell whether this has strayed from the
> locked hash subject into the subject of tainting,
> but I'd thought I chip in that Grant Street does
> use locked hashes in production code. We only have
> 7 digits of lines of in-house written perl code, not 8,
> and probably something painfully slow like ties could
> be done to work around them going away someday. But a
> long lead time would certainly be desirable here if so.

I think I kind of let it stray indeed. Apologies.

I also think that overall, there's been very, very clear evidence that 
locked hashes are here to stay, including yours.

Relating back to what triggered Yves to ask the question: I do think 
that if pluggable hashes via vtables ends up being workable, they MUST 
be able to support the locked hash use case or else they're incomplete. 
Which is tricky, but then again, the whole endeavor is really rather 

So: If the vtable stuff works out, it needs to simply transparently 
reimplement the existing locked hash APIs.

On an ironic side note: The placeholder logic seems to also be relevant 
to the way hints hashes are implemented (I might be misreading this. 
though), so the placeholder stuff that caused Yves to ask about the fate 
of locked hashes seems to be needed for more than just that. Shame. 
Really isn't helping. :)

Thanks everyone for your input!

Best regards,

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About