in reply to Re^3: Shouldn't references be readonly?
in thread Shouldn't LITERAL references be readonly? (updated)
> I am considering "literals" as more like constants embedded in the program,
I understand your POV ...
... BUT literals with the exception of undef are not constant!
Re^2: Shouldn't references be readonly?
It's always a new ref, hence constructed.
The semantics in JS are 100% the same, and they refer to [] and {} as "literal (object) constructors"
And I can't find any definition claiming literals to be constants, I think that was made up in this thread.
Cheers Rolf
(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery
In Section
Seekers of Perl Wisdom