On Thursday 02 August 2001 08:47 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 06:57 PM 8/2/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> >Here's how I'm documenting it. Corrections requested.
> >
> >Properties are by Perl thingy. (scalar, array, hash, reference, blessed
> >reference?, file handle, etc)
>
> I think they
Arrgh. lets try this again (for examples)
Statement: $bar = $foo is my_prop = 0 is some_prop;
This makes $foo have 'my_prop' and 'some_prop' with the value 0 - and $bar have
'my_prop' and 'some_prop' with the value 0.
Statement: $bar = 0;
This makes $bar have no properties with the value 0 (i
On Friday 03 August 2001 04:09 pm, Brent Dax wrote:
> # %foo is constant = (a=>1, b=>$foo);
> #
> # are only the keys contant; or both the keys and values.
>
> Keys and values, I imagine.
>
> # i.e. which of these is illegal
> #
> # %foo{c} = 1; # error
> # %foo{a} = 2; # probably error, but it wo
> I think they're supposed to be both by perl thingie and by value. So:
>
>my $foo is const = 0 is true;
>
> $foo has the property const, while the value 0 in $foo has
> the property true.
So, if I do
my $foo is constant = new Counter(0);
$foo->increment # OK
my $bar = new Counter(0) is
Here's how I'm documenting it. Corrections requested.
Properties are by Perl thingy. (scalar, array, hash, reference, blessed
reference?, file handle, etc)
That allows different things to be 'foo', for the appropriate definition of
'foo'.
---
Second thought:
Scribbling Servant
> >I want to say also :
> >
> >{value}hash% = key;
> Just use two hashes for this purpose. If you can write a class that help
> keeping
> track of the two hashes, that will be more useful than inventing weird
> syntax.
]- this was not a proposed syntaxI was just joked about it ... sorry.
:"|
