On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > >2. There is a primitive "array" type that is promoted to an > >objectified Array class when needed. This would be analogous > >to the int/Int distinction for primitive numbers. This would be > >visible to programmers, but may be acceptable for the same > >reason as the int/Int types are. > > Not unless Larry really insists. "Primitive" arrays aren't sub-, > super-, or side-classes of objects--they aren't objects at all. > (They're arrays, hence the name "array") You may be able to treat > them in some ways as objects, but that doesn't make them objects any > more than treating arrays like integers makes them integers.
Perhaps you could explain how the $0 object will work in your mind. A5 assert that $0 is a object, and it behaves as an array and a hash, depending on how you subscript it. Typeglobs are gone, and we're all hoping the TIE interface is gone too, so how will this effect be accomplished? ~ John Williams
