|Problems? Is your data what you think it is?|
|( #3333=superdoc: print w/replies, xml )||Need Help??|
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.
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)