Re^4: do separate hashes share common keys?

From memory of old experiments:

I think "fields" means attributes not methods.

And it's supposed to "boom" if an attribute is missing or typoed, even at compile time.

So it's rather a hash with frozen keys (not "Yet Another OO Model").

But yes, the sparse documentation invites to misinterpretations.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)

Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

Comment on Re^4: do separate hashes share common keys?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: do separate hashes share common keys? by jcb (Parson) on Feb 14, 2021 at 22:20 UTC
I believe that Radiola is correct that fields was intended as an interface to pseudo-hashes. I remember documentation urging the use of fields because it was specifically intended as a forwards-compatible interface that would still work after pseudo-hashes were removed. Pseudo-hashes seem to have been recognized as a bad idea almost as soon as they were implemented. You are also correct that fields has nothing to do with object methods; Radiola is confused on this point, although the documentation is also confusing here, since `fields` is documented in OO terms.	[reply] [d/l]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^5: do separate hashes share common keys?
by jcb (Parson) on Feb 14, 2021 at 22:20 UTC

I believe that Radiola is correct that fields was intended as an interface to pseudo-hashes. I remember documentation urging the use of fields because it was specifically intended as a forwards-compatible interface that would still work after pseudo-hashes were removed.

Pseudo-hashes seem to have been recognized as a bad idea almost as soon as they were implemented.

You are also correct that fields has nothing to do with object methods; Radiola is confused on this point, although the documentation is also confusing here, since fields is documented in OO terms.

[reply]
[d/l]