No it wouldn't, but wouldn't you be able to accomplish the same thing? Meaning use a variables name to get it's value.
-Lee
"To be civilized is to deny one's nature." | [reply] |
While the end result, being able to get the value of a lexical if you have its name, is the same, the syntax and intent is rather different. (Heck, you can get the values from lexicals by name now, if you don't mind dropping to C either directly or indirectly) TMTOWTDI and all, but walking %MY isn't really the same as a plain symbolic reference...
| [reply] |
I should have been clearer. I wasn't suggesting it was the same implementation-wise, just that it would allow you to get a lexical given it's name.
Though I know you can play with lexicals currently (I've done my share of poking trying to get lazy iterators to work via poking contexts in the caller's scope.) I wonder how %MY will work when continuations and what not come into play.
-Lee
"To be civilized is to deny one's nature."
| [reply] |