Front page | perl.perl6.internals |
Postings from September 2001
<rant type="possibly-incorrect" onincorrect="correct-without-flames"> Currently, in Perl 5, my() variables are stored in a totally separate way from normal our()/local() variables, in an array-of-arrays structure. This means that my() variables are second-class citizens. The opcodes to look up a my() variable are separate from the opcodes for an our()/local() variable. From my point of view, this seems dumb. Is there any real reason my() variables are stored in a pad instead of a symbol table? It seems more natural that they would be stored in a symbol table, since symbol tables are designed to hold variables. It also seems like it would allow us to implement 'my sub'. Of course, this has long been in Perl 5; I don't think it could be changed at this point. However, we're now doing the same thing with Perl 6. As if it didn't seem stupid enough as is, we're supposed to simulate at least some of the functionality of a symbol table through the MY:: pseudo-package. Once again, why isn't MY:: stored in some sort of anonymous symbol table? This would allow us to do all the things we can normally do with a global, without the hassles of writing a magical pseudo-package. </rant> --Brent Dax brentdax@cpan.org "...and if the answers are inadequate, the pumpqueen will be overthrown in a bloody coup by programmers flinging dead Java programs over the walls with a trebuchet."Thread Next