Re: Primitive Vs Object types

Luke Palmer wrote: Could you just look through the lexical scope of the object? for $this.MY.kv -> $k, $v { print "$k: $v\n" } Or would you look through the class's lexical scope and apply it to the object? for keys $this.class.MY { print "$_: $this.MY{$_}\n" }

Re: Primitive Vs Object types

Mark J. Reed wrote: Attributes are class-specific for a variable (okay, class instance specific, if you do Evil Things with multiple copies of a single base class in different legs of the inheritance tree and override the default behaviour of the engine) and not queryable at runtime without r

Re: Primitive Vs Object types

On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 04:16:50PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: > Basically anything you can potentially find in a symbol table or > lexical scratchpad will potentially be able to have a property > attached to it. The only way that we'll be able to reasonably > restrict (and optimize) the use of

Re: Primitive Vs Object types

Larry Wall wrote: ... I can see ways of binding properties to a location without growing the location itself, but I think stuffing a junction of ints into a single location is somewhat problematical. We are still talking about native types - these with lowercase names in the docs? Why should

Re: Primitive Vs Object types

On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 04:16:50PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: : At 8:29 PM +0100 11/7/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote: : >Michael Lazzaro wrote: : > : >> : >>On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 06:36 AM, Austin Hastings wrote: : >> : >>>For 'bit', the key value is (eenie, meenie, ...) '1'. : > : > : >> Fr

Re: Primitive Vs Object types

On 2002-11-07 at 15:28:14, Luke Palmer wrote: > > From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Will something like that not be possible in Perl6? > > I'm afraid that statement is false for all values of "something" :) Good point. Erratum: for

Re: Primitive Vs Object types

> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm > Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:19:28 -0500 > From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Disposition: inline > X-Julian-Day: 2452586.42675 > X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/ > > [Recipients list trimmed back to ju

Re: Primitive Vs Object types

[Recipients list trimmed back to just the list - it was getting ridiculous. So everyone will get only get one copy and it may take a tad longer to get there . . .] On 2002-11-07 at 17:07:46, Dan Sugalski wrote: > Attributes are class-specific for a variable (okay, class instance > specific, if

RE: Primitive Vs Object types

At 3:56 PM -0600 11/7/02, Garrett Goebel wrote: Dan Sugalski wrote: At 8:29 PM +0100 11/7/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote: >Michael Lazzaro wrote: >>On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 06:36 AM, Austin Hastings wrote: >> >>>For 'bit', the key value is (eenie, meenie, ...) '1'. > >> From A2 we ha

Re: Primitive Vs Object types

On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:56:04PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote: > Dan Sugalski wrote: > > At 8:29 PM +0100 11/7/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > > >Michael Lazzaro wrote: > > >>On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 06:36 AM, Austin Hastings wrote: > > >> > > >>>For 'bit', the key value is (eenie, meenie,

RE: Primitive Vs Object types

Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 8:29 PM +0100 11/7/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > >Michael Lazzaro wrote: > >>On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 06:36 AM, Austin Hastings wrote: > >> > >>>For 'bit', the key value is (eenie, meenie, ...) '1'. > > > >> From A2 we have: > >> > >>"Run-time properties really ar

Re: Primitive Vs Object types

At 8:29 PM +0100 11/7/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Michael Lazzaro wrote: On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 06:36 AM, Austin Hastings wrote: For 'bit', the key value is (eenie, meenie, ...) '1'. From A2 we have: "Run-time properties really are associated with the object in question, whi

Re: Primitive Vs Object types

Michael Lazzaro wrote: On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 06:36 AM, Austin Hastings wrote: For 'bit', the key value is (eenie, meenie, ...) '1'. From A2 we have: "Run-time properties really are associated with the object in question, which implies some amount of overhead. For that reaso

Re: Primitive Vs Object types

On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 06:36 AM, Austin Hastings wrote: For 'bit', the key value is (eenie, meenie, ...) '1'. Any '1' value will trigger a search for undef bit values. Presuming that bit values will not frequently be undef, the search should be cheap and the storage requirements will

Re: Primitive Vs Object types

--- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Primitive types were originally intended for runtime speed, thus an > "int" or a "bit" is as small as possible, and not a lot of weird > runtime > checking has to take place that would slow it down. It can't even be > undef, because that would tak

Re: Primitive Vs Object types

I gotta admit that this issue is bugging me too. Larry mentions (in ) that all-uppercase is "ugly" and has "boundary conditions". Maybe it would be helpful to know what conditions ar

RE: Primitive Vs Object types

Dan Sugalski [mailto:dan@;sidhe.org] wrote: > At 8:24 PM -0800 11/6/02, David Whipp wrote: > >If I am wrong, then I am in need of enlightenment. What > >is the difference between the primitive types and their > >heavyweight partners? And which should I use in a typical > >script? > > The big diff

Re: Primitive Vs Object types

David Whipp wrote: > > Dan Sugalski [mailto:dan@;sidhe.org] wrote: > > At 6:50 PM -0800 11/6/02, David Whipp wrote: > > > Whenever a value passes through a primitive type, it > > > loses all its run-time properties; and superpositions > > > will collapse. > > > > What makes you think so, and are y

RE: Primitive Vs Object types

At 8:24 PM -0800 11/6/02, David Whipp wrote: If I am wrong, then I am in need of enlightenment. What is the difference between the primitive types and their heavyweight partners? And which should I use in a typical script? The big difference is there's no way you can ever truly get a primitive

RE: Primitive Vs Object types

Dan Sugalski [mailto:dan@;sidhe.org] wrote: > At 6:50 PM -0800 11/6/02, David Whipp wrote: > > Whenever a value passes through a primitive type, it > > loses all its run-time properties; and superpositions > > will collapse. > > What makes you think so, and are you really sure? I was sure up unti

Re: Primitive Vs Object types

At 6:50 PM -0800 11/6/02, David Whipp wrote: Whenever a value passes through a primitive type, it loses all its run-time properties; and superpositions will collapse. What makes you think so, and are you really sure? -- Dan ---