Re^2: equivalent to Hash::Util for lists / arrays

I have yet to see a convincing use case for the locking of a whole array.

And have you seen it for hashes? I've a hard time imagining someone who can see a convincing case for the one, but not for the other.

But regardless, whether or not some monks see convincing uses for it or not is irrelevant to the question on whether it exists or not.

Comment on Re^2: equivalent to Hash::Util for lists / arrays

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: equivalent to Hash::Util for lists / arrays by LanX (Saint) on Dec 21, 2010 at 17:42 UTC
> I've a hard time imagining someone who can see a convincing case for the one, but not for the other. In theory yes, IMHO practically many of those cases wouldn't be implemented with arrays right away. For instance avoiding typos in keys - in cases where indices have to be reproduced correctly it's anyway better to use a hash. And if performance prohibits using hashes, there is nothing faster than using constant lists because of constant folding at compilation ... Cheers Rolf	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

> I've a hard time imagining someone who can see a convincing case for the one, but not for the other.

In theory yes, IMHO practically many of those cases wouldn't be implemented with arrays right away.

For instance avoiding typos in keys - in cases where indices have to be reproduced correctly it's anyway better to use a hash.

And if performance prohibits using hashes, there is nothing faster than using constant lists because of constant folding at compilation ...

Cheers Rolf