in reply to Re^13: ref to read-only alias ... why? (notabug)
in thread ref to read-only alias ... why?
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I do see that these values are modifiable. But my objection is that for(1..3) construct doesn't do aliasing, which is 50% of the original bug. If my example above did print 3 instead of 2, then yes, I'd accept that as a proof.
Same thing on $_++ for 1 - it dies, because of aliasing comes into play. And I neither get what does "intentionally returns a modifiable value (in a sense) some of the times" mean. For what I see, it just doesn't return a modifiable value, at all.
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^15: ref to read-only alias ... why? (notabug)
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jan 07, 2012 at 01:09 UTC | |
by dk (Chaplain) on Jan 08, 2012 at 19:46 UTC | |
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jan 09, 2012 at 09:59 UTC | |
by dk (Chaplain) on Jan 09, 2012 at 16:48 UTC | |
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jan 09, 2012 at 18:15 UTC | |
| |
by LanX (Saint) on Jan 08, 2012 at 21:04 UTC |
In Section
Seekers of Perl Wisdom