good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
This was originially a response to Re^2: lvalue considered harmful..., but in writing it, a bigger question arose.
Does anyone use lvalue subs? If so, for what?
I realise that the these were added as and remain an experimental feature, but they must have been added for a reason. I'm just wondering what the reason was. As they are, the only thing that can be done with the assigned value is ... well, to assign it to something. Sure, you can decide what to assign it to using the values past via the normal @_ mechanism to make the determination, but there is absolutely no way to inspect the value of the assign value either before you assign it nor after is was assigned. That means it is impossible to perform any verification on the assigned value. This may work for things like substr and splice, that simply don't care what is assigned, but it makes using lvaue subs for any other purpose pretty much useless. I note that vec can and does inspect the value assigned in that it will reject non-numerical assignments as it has to process them in order to use them. This is exactly the facility I would like to use.
To me, this makes the utility of :lvalue pretty much non-existant. Which is a shame, because I think that the semantics of lvalue subs has a lot going for it.
I don't see any reason why the assigned value shouldn't be made available to the sub through any one of a number of mechanisms:
Of these mechanisms, I like the alising of the subs name the best I think. It seems a fairly natural mechanism that $subname would alias the (first) value assigned to an lvalue sub and @subname would alias the list of values assigned to the an lvalue sub. It has the virtue of not clashing with any existing mechanism as far as I can see. It has the possible downside that as a new mechanism it might be hard to implement?
Using @^_ and/or $^_ would be my second choice.
I would be interested to hear about anyones experience of using the current implementation of lvalue subs successfully, as well as comments on my thoughts for extending it. Also, if anyone thinks or knows if this would be likely to be accepted as a patch for a perl 5 ( I assume something better will be in place for perl 6), and any thoughts on how hard that would be to do.
Examine what is said, not who speaks.
update (broquaint): added <readmore> tags