On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 10:01:28AM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
> First of all, thanks for putting this table together; this is good way to
> clear all the up.
You're welcome.
> Could we revist the idea of alternate syntax to disambiguate between
> value and variable cases? Perhaps now that we've freed up the '->' we
> could use that to access properties on the variable, while '.'
> continues to be for the value (since that is more consistent with
> other usages of '.', such as $foo.callSomeMethod() ).
Would you also advocate separate declarative syntax for variable
properties and value properties? That's where I think much confusion
will be.
> > MVA $spot.bark (+$spot).bark
> > 010 arf Error
...
> Third, a question about the table above. (+spot).bark evaluates to the
> value properties, yes? So, shouldn't the 'arf' and 'Error' be switched
> for 010?
Er, no. The "A" column was for value properties, and the "V" column
for variable properties. So, "010" means no bark method or bark value
property, but a variable property called bark.
Also, after looking at my table with fresh eyes, everywhere it says
"Error" should say "False" instead. "Error" implies that perl will
carp about it, but in reality it should just return a false value to
say that the property doesn't exist.
BTW, I've decided to stop calling them variable and value properties
because that terminology is just too confusing (for me at least). I like
"compile-time properties" and "run-time properties" much better.
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
