Damian Conway wrote:
>
> The problem with specifying them as attributes is that I do not believe
> there is any way (or even any proposed way) of applying attributes to
> a hash entrie or a hash slice, nor is there any way of *retrospectively*
> applying an attribute to a hash that has already be
The problem with specifying them as attributes is that I do not believe
there is any way (or even any proposed way) of applying attributes to
a hash entrie or a hash slice, nor is there any way of *retrospectively*
applying an attribute to a hash that has already been declared elsewhere.
Damian
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>
> With the exact same semantics? I.e.,
>
> my $hash{$key} : private = $val;
>
> makes %hash non-autovivifying, thus forcing the programmer to
> "declare" all of the hash keys he intends to use?
If you wanted to declare you lexical scope separate from your
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 12:35:31PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > This RFC proposes two new keywords -- C and C -- that limit
> > the accessibility of keys in a hash, and of methods.
>
> I still think these should be attributes across the board:
>
>my $hash{$key} : private = $val;
>my @h
> This RFC proposes two new keywords -- C and C -- that limit
> the accessibility of keys in a hash, and of methods.
I still think these should be attributes across the board:
my $hash{$key} : private = $val;
my @hash{qw(_name _rank _snum)} : public;
sub dostuff : private { }
I'd be in
