[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: > Also, what's the difference between a 'property' and an
: > 'attribute', ie, are:
: >
: > $fh is true;
: >
: > and
: >
: > $fh.true(1);
: >
: > synonyms?
:
: No. The former means:
:
: "Set the true property to 1 and return an alias to $fh"
Or $fh itself, unless properties end up be implemented as delegation.
: The latter means:
:
: "Attempt to call the C<true> method of $fh. If there is no such
: method, set the true property to 1 and return that value"
I'd make an argument that it should return the old value of the property.
: > Can 'undef' valued thingys have properties
:
: Yes.
Agreed, and I think this is where you'll see properties used the most!
: > and functions?
:
: No.
Functions can at least have compile-time properties.
: > And if all of the above is true, what does this do to the size of
: > the internal representation of a scalar?
:
: In the worst case, it adds a single pointer to it. But it's entirely
: possible that properties would be stored centrally, in which case
: there's no impact at all.
I don't know if central storage will work out without the connivance of
a sympathetic GC, but in any event, it is my hope that no value without
properties will be required to store anything extra to support
properties (with the possible exception of a bit saying whether there
are properties). But as Damian says, worst case is a single pointer.
Larry
