in reply to Re^3: Shouldn't references be readonly?
in thread Shouldn't LITERAL references be readonly? (updated)
> That seems to be because a reference to a literal actually constructs a new scalar;
again more theories ...
see how the ref to a real constant like a stays stable in Re^8: Shouldn't references be readonly? (updated) and please explain the difference to your allegedly constant 1 .
> There is no such thing as a literal aggregate in Perl — the {} and [] operators are defined as constructors instead.
Defined? ... Source?
Cheers Rolf
(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^5: Shouldn't references be readonly?
by hippo (Bishop) on Aug 05, 2020 at 22:07 UTC | |
Re^5: Shouldn't references be readonly?
by jcb (Parson) on Aug 05, 2020 at 22:01 UTC | |
by LanX (Saint) on Aug 05, 2020 at 22:11 UTC | |
by jcb (Parson) on Aug 05, 2020 at 22:18 UTC |
In Section
Seekers of Perl Wisdom