Buddy Burden wrote:
> rather I use
>
> hash.list => [ $hash ]
>
> which seems to me to match better the way a scalar would convert.
Yes, I'm coming around to this way of thinking. It makes a lot of sense.
And you can always do hash.each if you do want [ %$hash ].
> Here's my question about XS Stash changes: I saw in the documentation that
> tie'd hashes don't really work with the XS Stash. (Took me a while to find
> it, and I can't find it again now, but I did eventually come across it.)
> Is this one of those things that's too horrifically bitchy to even think
> about fixing, or just something nobody ever got around to?
It's a bitchy job :-(
In Perl, tied hashes and arrays behave more-or-less just like regular ones
because the magic is hidden. But at the XS layer you have to code the magic
yourself. From what I recall of last time I looked into it, it all gets
messy very quickly.
Having said that, adding Stephen's fallback checks to the XS Stash
turned out to be relatively painless. I'd forgotten how much I enjoy
writing C. It's just the Perl XS layer and all that worrying about
reference counting that takes the fun out of it. I'm taking another
look...
A
|
