comment on

The whole discussion about "literals" is unfortunately only distracting

uh, I didn't bring up literals at all. It's an ambiguous word which may or may not include [4,5,6] depending on who you ask. It's useless to talk about literals.

You asked why it wasn't like "TEST", 42 and undef, and I told you why.

If you want to ask a different question now, fine.

map { ++$_ } [1,2,3] should throw an error

After all the fuss you made about inconsistency when you thought it wasn't consistent, you now want to make it inconsistent?

No, assigning a number to a scalar that previously contained a reference is odd, but it shouldn't be an error.

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

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


Problems? Is your data what you think it is?
	PerlMonks