in reply to Re^5: Shouldn't references be readonly?
in thread Shouldn't LITERAL references be readonly? (updated)

you are aware that "constructor" isn't even mentioned in your definition? ;)

calling [$a] a "literal constructor" is not far fetched.

a non literal construction is in contrast to do { @a=($a); \@a } because it involves a variable.

This it meets the definitions in perlglossary ("no variable") and is also mirrored in JS terminology which has 100% the same semantic.

Cheers Rolf
(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery