Re^4: Shouldn't references be readonly?

in reply to Re^3: Shouldn't references be readonly?
in thread Shouldn't LITERAL references be readonly? (updated)

> Perl doesn't have literal arrays ... a reference to an anonymous array,

Perlglossary

literal

A token in a programming language, such as a number or string, that gives you an actual value instead of merely representing possible values as a variable does.

anonymous

Used to describe a referent that is not directly accessible through a named variable. Such a referent must be indirectly accessible through at least one hard reference. When the last hard reference goes away, the anonymous referent is destroyed without pity

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

Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

Comment on Re^4: Shouldn't references be readonly?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Shouldn't references be readonly? by dave_the_m (Monsignor) on Aug 05, 2020 at 18:38 UTC
Which of the following do you regard as a literal array: `[] [1,2,3] [1,2,$x]` [download] I regard none of them as literal. [] {} are constructors; they are just syntactic sugar for a function which takes a list and returns a reference to an anonymous aggregate, e.g. `[1,2,3] # is the same as anon_array(1,2,3); sub anon_array { my @a = @_; \@a }` [download] Dave.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^6: Shouldn't references be readonly? (updated) by LanX (Sage) on Aug 05, 2020 at 18:51 UTC
They are all literal reference constructors the content is mutable. Please compare the analogue situation in JS where `[]` and `{}` explicitly documented as "literal".° See also `Readonly` which makes the explicit distinction about overwriting a variable holding an array and protecting the deep content. Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery} UPDATE °) https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Array/Array `Arrays can be created using the literal notation: let fruits = ['Apple', 'Banana']; console.log(fruits.length); // 2 console.log(fruits[0]); // "Apple"` [download]	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^7: Shouldn't references be readonly? (updated) by dave_the_m (Monsignor) on Aug 05, 2020 at 21:20 UTC
All I can say is that I personally strongly disagree with your use of term "literal" in this context, and I think that any attempt to draw an analogy between 1 and 1 is specious. The former is a literal value appearing in the source code and used as a compile-time constant. The latter is a run-time list constructor. But regardless of that, there is still the question of whether the reference returned by [] and {} should be marked readonly. I suppose it could be but Larry never thought to do so, and there doesn't seem any point in changing it now. Dave.	[reply]
Re^8: Shouldn't references be readonly? (updated) by LanX (Sage) on Aug 05, 2020 at 21:41 UTC
Re^8: Shouldn't references be readonly? (updated) by LanX (Sage) on Aug 05, 2020 at 21:35 UTC
Re^9: Shouldn't references be readonly? (updated) by dave_the_m (Monsignor) on Aug 06, 2020 at 08:51 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^9: Shouldn't references be readonly? (updated) by chromatic (Archbishop) on Aug 06, 2020 at 00:41 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom

literal

anonymous

UPDATE