Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2017
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 speculative. 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, SteffenThread Previous | Thread Next