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

> I am considering "literals" as more like constants embedded in the program,

I understand your POV ...

... BUT literals with the exception of undef are not constant!

Re^2: Shouldn't references be readonly?

It's always a new ref, hence constructed.

The semantics in JS are 100% the same, and they refer to [] and {} as "literal (object) constructors"

And I can't find any definition claiming literals to be constants, I think that was made up in this thread.

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