Re: [RFC] Stringify a thread

On 05/10/06, Jerry Hedden <[email protected]> wrote:
> > given my experience of ""-overloading, and given that
> > tid() and the default stringification both return a unique
> > id, I don't think I like the idea of adding ""-overloading
> > to threads.
>
> What specifically is wrong with ""-overloading?

Since I've verified that threads use overload fallback, probably less
than I thought.

> > After all, == and != are already overloaded.
>
> And how is that an argument AGAINST adding ""-overloading?
> I see it as a supporting argument.  IMHO, the fact that ==
> and != are overloaded for threads, but "" is not, constitutes
> a bug by omission.  (BTW, I went over all the other overload
> options, but didn't see that any of them made sense.)

but eq already works for threads equality, no ?

> > I'd prefer the suggestion of Jonathan, having an import
> > flag to enable the stringification behaviour.
>
> Eww.  Adding a flag to turn ON behavior that should have
> been there in the first place is yucky.  (At least to my
> tastes which, of course, may just be all in my mouth.)

Yes; and in bleadperl we have the "feature" pragma to turn on cool
features. That's called preserving backwards compatibility, and Perl 5
has a reputation being good at it...