At 09:13 AM 8/9/00 -0400, John Porter wrote: >Michael Fowler wrote: > > > > I think a stringified reference is worth seeing, moreso than a simple > undef, > > for debugging purposes if nothing else. > >I personally would like to have the stringification of refs be a >symmetric operation, That leads us possibly into C's wild pointer swamp, and I'm not sure I personally want to go there. It also makes strings the equivalent of weak refs, which can cause someone (either you or the garbage collector, and almost undoubtedly the guy who writes the core code) some headaches. Dan --------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin strin... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin stringifyi... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin strin... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin s... John Porter
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have built... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have b... John Porter
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin strin... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin s... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin s... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have built... John Porter
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have b... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have b... Hildo Biersma
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should h... John Porter
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have b... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have built... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have b... Michael Fowler