Re^2: ref to read-only alias ... why? (notabug)
by dk (Chaplain) on Jan 06, 2012 at 15:48 UTC
|
I want it documented, and consistent. I agree that the for() case can be seen as stretched ( I like my for(1) to make an alias to $_ so I can do all magic with it inside the for block, but that's another story).
But anyway, what would you say about this then? Is this a bug or not?
sub x
{
my $ref = \ $_[0];
$$ref ++;
}
x(1);
I'd say that even if this behavior will be decided on as not a bug, then it has to be documented, at the very least.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] [d/l] |
|
I'd document it pretty much as I already described it. Passing a read-only value or a literal constant to something that makes aliases (for, a sub) may decide to make an alias to the read-only value or may decide to make a copy of it. The decision might even be different in those two case (a literal constant vs. some other read-only scalar). The choice is a matter of optimization and subtle edge cases and Perl code should not depend on either specific behavior. Both behaviors have existed in many different versions of Perl.
No, I don't consider it a bug that some versions of Perl don't die in the face of:
sub add1 { return ++$_[0]; }
my $two= add1(1);
Despite the use of "++" over "1+" there being questionable. It does have the interesting and perhaps useful side effect of allowing: add1($count). Yes, it is a contrived example. As is yours.
I don't find it hard to imagine cases where either result would be preferred. I do find it hard to imagine cases where either result is a serious problem that I wouldn't just address with a better interface for the subroutine.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] [d/l] [select] |
|
Thanks for commenting. Here's a case with a serious problem: a person writes code that doesn't fail, which then gets executed on another installation, and fails. I'd say it's bad enough. I believe I'd file a bug after all (unless you have reasons for me not to).
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
|
|
|
|
Your right it's not consistent.
But IMHO consistency will most likely break legacy code.
I think that there should at least be a warning.
Since it's not always clear if a variable is an alias, this can cause very hard to detect errors in subs which are meant to modify call-by-reference parameters. (not to be confused with Perl references)
Did you check if there are already older bug-reports regarding this?
UPDATE:
DB<108> sub inc_a { $_[0]++; return }
DB<109> $x=1; inc_a($x); print $x
2
DB<110> inc_a(1)
Modification of a read-only value attempted at (eval 13)[/usr/share/pe
+rl/5.10/perl5db.pl:638] line 2.
but
DB<111> sub inc_b { my $r=\ $_[0]; $$r++; return }
DB<112> $x=1; inc_b($x); print $x
2
DB<113> inc_b(1)
DB<114>
When passing an aliasing variable instead of 1 it's the same problem. With inc_b non-aliasing vars will increment, but aliases will silently fail to increment. | [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] [d/l] [select] |
|
Your right it's not consistent. But IMHO consistency will most likely break legacy code.
I think you're saying that because you envision it being consistently broken (always dying) instead of it being consistently fixed (never dying).
There are two ways of fixing it:
- Have literal constants always return new values. That's inefficient.
- Have literal constants return copy-on-write values. There's currently no such mechanism, and that's a lot of work to implement.
Check out this bug that would also be fixed by either of the above two fixes:
for (1..2) {
for (1..3) { print $_++; } # 123 234
print "\n";
}
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] [d/l] |
|
Heh, it's a 8-year old (!!!!) bug: https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=21979 . With resolution that it's indeed a bug ... well, that situation doesn't seem good to me, when noone wants to touch a bug in 8 years. I wonder why.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
|
|