Re^5: Shouldn't references be readonly? (updated)

in reply to Re^4: Shouldn't references be readonly? (updated)
in thread Shouldn't LITERAL references be readonly? (updated)

> It would break some code

I think if it comes to simple scalar types like strings this would result in a migration nightmare.

Hence I wouldn't include the cases like $x.$y, <>, etc at least by default.

Refs on the other hand should be immutable, because the result is always junk.

But I doubt we have the resources to implement that anyway.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)

Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

Comment on Re^5: Shouldn't references be readonly? (updated) Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Shouldn't references be readonly? (updated) by ikegami (Patriarch) on Aug 07, 2020 at 19:54 UTC
`@a = map { $_ = 3; } [];` [download] is no more or less junk than `@a = map { $_ = 3; } $x.$y;` [download] Are you therefore talking about `[] + 1`? Making the reference read-only is not going to catch that.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^7: Shouldn't references be readonly? (updated) by LanX (Saint) on Aug 08, 2020 at 01:17 UTC
There are far more situations where it might make sense to append or add something to a simple type. Not so with refs, no way a .= or a += will lead to anything meaningful. Well except when blessed and overloaded. But that's far fetched. Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]
Re^8: Shouldn't references be readonly? (updated) by ikegami (Patriarch) on Aug 09, 2020 at 06:55 UTC
Making the var read-only won't prevent concatenation or addition, so it doesn't matter that `$x . []` or `$x + []` doesn't make sense.^[1]. This isn't relevant to the topic at hand. The only thing making it read-only will do is prevent assignment, and `map { $_ = 3 } $x.$y` makes no more sense than `map { $_ = 3 } []`. Either prevent both of them, or prevent neither of them. No need for baseless inconsistencies. That said, `$ref+0` makes some sense for refs to things other than objects with overloads, and both concatenation and addition make sense for refs to objects with overloads (which aren't farfetched at all!)	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^9: Shouldn't references be readonly? (updated) by ikegami (Patriarch) on Aug 09, 2020 at 07:12 UTC
Re^9: Shouldn't references be readonly? (updated) by LanX (Saint) on Aug 09, 2020 at 12:46 UTC
Re^10: Shouldn't references be readonly? (updated) by ikegami (Patriarch) on Aug 09, 2020 at 21:19 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^10: Shouldn't references be readonly? (updated) by ikegami (Patriarch) on Aug 09, 2020 at 21:07 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom