in reply to Re^9: Shouldn't references be readonly? (updated)
in thread Shouldn't LITERAL references be readonly? (updated)
> I don't understand what of interest that's supposed to show.
The fact that [...] resolves each time to a new AV was used as argument against being literal.
Obviously most "literals" are not treated the way constants are. (with the exception of undef)
Cheers Rolf
(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery
|
|---|
In Section
Seekers of Perl Wisdom