Yours is a subtle question of typing. Possibly you are only
talking about
chomp because being a builtin the error is found at compile time;
my_chomp won't be caught until runtime.
I agree with BigLug, it makes sense to complain for finding problems sooner. But this merely indicates that I accept the conventions surrounding const'ness. I don't want to change because the earliest finding of illogical actions in my code makes for easier coding in my view.
The view you consider, that const'ness be a protection given to a variable, seems less useful. If you wish to play with your idea further here is an imp (I think this is a bad idea as the resulting code seems misleading):
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
package protected;
# constant data that doesn't complain, just doesn't change.
# We could have a flag to allow a protected to store a value once;
# We could have a "new" subroutine to hide the tied'ness.
# Then usage would look like:
# use protected;
# my $ONE = protected->new;
# $ONE = 'one';
sub TIESCALAR {
my $class = shift;
my $data = shift;
return bless { data => $data }, $class;
}
sub FETCH { return $_[0]->{data} }
sub STORE { return $_[0]->{data} }
package main;
my $THREE;
tie $THREE, 'protected', "three ";
$THREE = "four";
chomp $THREE;
print "\$THREE >$THREE<", $/;
Be well,
rir
