in reply to Re^7: Shouldn't references be readonly? (updated)
in thread Shouldn't LITERAL references be readonly? (updated)
I wished I could up-vote you multiple times. :)
> but sub bar () { [] } returns a new anonymous array each time.
Interesting ... here a workaround
DB<99> my $a =[]; sub bar () { $a } DB<100> sub tst { print bar,bar} DB<101> tst ARRAY(0x3365bc0)ARRAY(0x3365bc0)
But sorry when I insist, the following case should be an error, because the aliased literal array will be destroyed afterwards, which sense does it make to alter it?
map { $_++ } []
I wouldn't mind map { $_+1 } [] tho.
> But something like map { $_++ } \undef not failing doesn't entirely make sense to me yet
agreed, I think it's simply not covered.
> As an aside, I was playing around in the console a bit and can't yet wrap my head around this,
... is pretty clear to me. I also have an answer for you ;-p
The first post -increment returns the original value before incrementing.
The second pre -increment returns the result, which is the numification of the reference +1
DB<105> p []+1 53924433
Cheers Rolf
(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery
|
---|