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
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^7: Shouldn't references be readonly?
by jcb (Parson) on Aug 05, 2020 at 22:18 UTC |
In Section
Seekers of Perl Wisdom