On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Ben Tilly wrote:

> In your book I count 40 methods for hashes.  Matching the
> full behaviour of arrays would be worse.

Ummmm, not my book.  (Which is called "Law in Film" -- hey, I never
thought I'd have an excuse to plug it here :-)  Other Dav*.  Or,
more precisely, one of the other Dav*s.  (I guess I should find some
comfort in the fact that even being named Clemens doesn't help you
around here :-)

> Tying out to the full behaviour takes a lot more work than
> it needs to.  A few well-chosen modules could make this
> much easier.

But not every method would need to be redefined for every tying
situation.  Again, I'm not objecting to the idea of some kind of
modularization of this, though I am having some trouble thinking of
a case where I would find it insufficient to redefine a few things
like #[], #[]=, possibly has_key?, etc.  

I'm willing to be persuaded, just currently see this as a solution in
search of a problem.


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack / candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav / shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav