Re: Two problems groping around in PerlHashes

2002-10-21 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski wrote: For plain PerlHash PMCs, yes, they should be PMCs only. The union went into them in a fit of enthusiasm and generality. :) More specialized aggregates can hold more specialized things, but I'm not sure we're going to have a need for something that really efficiently holds

Re: Two problems groping around in PerlHashes

2002-10-21 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 9:30 AM +0200 10/21/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Jason Gloudon wrote: The vtable PDD refers to type_keyed returning the type of the *PMC*. This isn't accurate given the question. Should we change the PDD ? As we are now (almost) able to generate packed arrays of chars, shorts , we shou

Re: Two problems groping around in PerlHashes

2002-10-20 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Clinton A. Pierce wrote: While working on ...something... I found the need to be able to tell if a key exists in a PerlHash. Here's the kicker, I don't know what kind of data's gonna be there: int, float, PMC, or string. [ snipp ] exists Px[key], branch PDD02 specifies the needed m

Re: Two problems groping around in PerlHashes

2002-10-20 Thread Jason Gloudon
On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 12:32:24PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > PDD02 specifies the needed methods > > exists_keyed > type_keyed The vtable PDD refers to type_keyed returning the type of the *PMC*. This isn't accurate given the question. Should we change the PDD ? > perlhash/arr