http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=900812


in reply to Re^5: The fallacy of the *requirement* for read-only instance variables.
in thread The fallacy of the *requirement* for read-only instance variables.

You're 180 degrees off in your first sentence. The whole point of that paragraph is you cannot use the object handle as the unique id. That's why I consistently use distinct terms like "unique id" and "object handle", to avoid this kind of confusion.

I started a reply and realized I was just repeating myself. I will be content to stand on what I've written already.

  • Comment on Re^6: The fallacy of the *requirement* for read-only instance variables.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: The fallacy of the *requirement* for read-only instance variables.
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 22, 2011 at 13:51 UTC

    Hm . That seems like a cop out given that I didn't equate unique ids with object handles in the first sentence, or in the first paragraph, or anywhere in the first 5 paragraphs.

    So it remains that no one has yet demonstrated even a good use for ROIAs. Much less a necessity for them.


    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.