Ken Fox wrote:
> IMHO, curries have nothing to do with this. All "with" really does is
> create a dynamic scope from the contents of the hash and evaluate its
> block in that scope.
Right, the "with" people are using ^hats because its an available
operator, just the same way the "curry" people are. May have shifted
over the weekend I do not know.
> my %person = { name => 'John Doe', age => 47 };
>
> with %person {
> print "$name is $age years old\n";
> }
How about changing it to
print "$\name is $\age years old\n";
That's clear as long as we can't name variables except w/in [\w]
>
> becomes
>
> {
> my $env = $CORE::CURRENT_SCOPE;
>
> while (my($k, $v) = each(%person)) {
> $env->bind_scalar($k, $v);
> }
>
> print "$name is $age years old\n";
> }
>
> Where $CORE::CURRENT_SCOPE is some sort of magical variable that provides
> access to the symbol table for the current scope. The bind_scalar() method
> creates a new value binding. The code block of the "with" is evaluated
> with these new bindings in effect.
>
> The simplest way of doing this is to turn off warnings inside the "with"
> block and force those variable names into the local scope at compile time.
> Then at run-time the bind_scalar() can re-bind the variables to the values
> in the hash.
>
> - Ken
But that doesn't give us the speed win we want from compiling offset lookups
into a static record structure, at the cost of some funny "in -the-record"
syntax, as in other languages that support this (pascal, VB, C)
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
