Ideas for a talk
marvin at rectangular.com
Sun Sep 10 22:30:36 BST 2006
On Sep 10, 2006, at 1:41 PM, Bruce James wrote:
> What about the fieldhashes?
I haven't used them, yet. However, I have written my own inside-out
classes, and I've run into the problems that fieldhashes are supposed
to help out on. It'd be nice not to have to pay so much attention to
writing DESTROY methods, or to how keys get stringified. I love the
convenience of being able to subclass anything using the inside-out
technique -- bless hash, blessed C struct, blessed filehandle -- and
attach my own attributes without worrying about, say, namespace
collision inside a hash object. Fieldhashes make that common use
case more convenient.
Threading is improved but still complex, and the serialization
problem (how to get Data::Dumper, Storable, etc to see your
attributes) remains unsolved. But those are problems only faced in a
small subset of the situations when you'd want an inside-out object.
The destruction and stringification problems that fieldhashes address
are ones you have to solve every time.
More information about the london.pm