<html><body>
<p><tt>xotcl-bounces@alice.wu-wien.ac.at wrote on 03/19/2006 04:08:40 AM:<br>
<br>
> <br>
> On 19 Mar 2006, at 00:12, Scott Gargash wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > When would you need the namespace of the object? <br>
> I have only ever needed the namespace of an object which attaching <br>
> traces to variables (f.ex. with Tk), but for that it is, <br>
> unfortunately quite necessary.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>I haven't used it yet, but doesn't the "trace" method handle this? </tt><br>
<tt><br>
> > As an aside, I find Tcl's lack of true references to be one of its <br>
> > nagging flaws.<br>
> Yes, this is a problem. If Tcl had proper references then we could do <br>
> garbage collection for objects. The problem is that Tcl's principle <br>
> of everything being a string kind of conflicts with references. <br>
> References can be represented as strings, although not very useful <br>
> strings, but they really aren't strings. I mean, if the string output <br>
> for a reference is 0x123456, but I generated that through some other <br>
> string operations (or, say we lose the original Tcl object through <br>
> various operations) then that will no longer necessarily work as a <br>
> reference if the original is gone.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>Amen, brother. For years I've tossed around thoughts on how to have references in Tcl, but I can't come up with a way to do it without breaking "everything is a string". And if that breaks, well, it's not Tcl anymore. </tt><br>
<br>
<tt>But I want lambdas. :)</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>> This is particularly problematic as Tcl still has quite a habit of <br>
> losing that original representation which naturally I hope will be <br>
> reduced in the future.<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>Where do you see this happening? Do you mean losing the original representation via shimmering, or something else?</tt><br>
<br>
<tt> Scott</tt></body></html>