Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
We don't bite newbies here... much
 
PerlMonks  

Re^12: ref to read-only alias ... why? (notabug)

by dk (Chaplain)
on Jan 06, 2012 at 22:10 UTC ( #946676=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^11: ref to read-only alias ... why? (notabug)
in thread ref to read-only alias ... why?

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that there's another issue you're trying to pull it here, namely difference between for(1) and for(1..3). They _do_ behave weirdly, I totally agree. But I believe that's a totally separate issue, probably related to parser even, because this code:

my $a = 2; $_++ for 1..$a; print "$a\n"; # 2

shows that $a is not aliased. Therefore I don't see how the original problem that needs a scalar be both aliased and read-only, is relevant here.


Comment on Re^12: ref to read-only alias ... why? (notabug)
Select or Download Code
Re^13: ref to read-only alias ... why? (notabug)
by ikegami (Pope) on Jan 06, 2012 at 22:16 UTC

    You seem to be operating from the point of view that "It's self-evident that literals should create non-modifiable values." Yet that's currently not the case in 50% of the examples I posted.

    «1» in «for (1)» could return a non-modifiable value, but it intentionally returns a modifiable value (in a sense) some of the times.

    «1..3» in «for (1..3)» could return non-modifiable values, but it returns modifiable values, and it's intentionally not getting changed because people want literals to return modifiable values.

    It's not self-evident that literals should create non-modifiable values.

      Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I do see that these values are modifiable. But my objection is that for(1..3) construct doesn't do aliasing, which is 50% of the original bug. If my example above did print 3 instead of 2, then yes, I'd accept that as a proof.

      Same thing on $_++ for 1 - it dies, because of aliasing comes into play. And I neither get what does "intentionally returns a modifiable value (in a sense) some of the times" mean. For what I see, it just doesn't return a modifiable value, at all.

        But my objection is that for(1..3) construct doesn't do aliasing

        That's not true. Exactly the same aliasing occurs for both for(1..3) and for(1).

        "intentionally returns a modifiable value (in a sense) some of the times" mean

        Intentionally coded to return a value that can be changed without causing a read-only error.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://946676]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others examining the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-08-31 04:45 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    The best computer themed movie is:











    Results (294 votes), past polls