> I think a stringified reference is worth seeing, moreso than a simple undef, > for debugging purposes if nothing else. Debugging is great, but I don't think this is the way to do it. The reason is some objects might have a STRING method while others don't, so you'll only get partial access to some of the objects' underlying structures. I think a separate call that dumped the info (basically what print $object does now) is better. That way you're guaranteed to get it. And a novice programmer isn't confused by seeing "HASH(0xe3902)" when they expected to see some type of "real" data. -Nate
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin s... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have built... John Porter
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin stringifyi... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin strin... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin strin... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin s... John Porter
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have built... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have built... Hildo Biersma
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have b... John Porter
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have built... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin s... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have built... Michael Fowler