(Sorry, deleted Michael's original message, hence this messy quoting
interaction)
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 03:11:34PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Shouldn't access to 'is computed' arrays be read-only?
>
> If you want to be able to consume the elements by shifting,
> you can always create a tied object that kees a cursor and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> a reference to the underlying array and gives you that
> access (and it could die for splicing, etc.)...
> Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 01/30/2003 02:25 PM
> Not saying that's wrong. Just very, very wacky. And yes, it's fixable
> if every array has an "offset" number that's always updated to mark how
> far the array has been shifted/unshifted from it's starting point. But
> I'm not suggesting that. Really.
>
> MikeL
I think there is a lot of scope for creating tied objects for all of this
complex behaviour. Everyone has different ideas about what would be useful,
and they aren't all compatible. Eliminating the speed hit from perl 5 tie
and perl 5 overloading is one big reason why parrot should be nicer to work
with than any language built on the perl 5 internals.
Nicholas Clark
