Re^3: Order of execution of functions in list

> > returns an rvalue

FWIW: I think this code is easier to understand and demonstrates your point

  DB<194> sub tst { my $x=\(shift()); ++$$x }

  DB<195> $a=10
 => 10

  DB<196> tst $a
 => 11

  DB<197> tst $a
 => 12

  DB<198> $a
 => 12
[download]

I get the same results using the equivalent splice(@_,0,1)

That's not documented in the perldocs for shift or splice and I think it's due to the way Perl holds and replaces variables in @_, they just don't loose their aliasing magic when shifted.

Maybe Perl avoids copying of the values for performance reasons.

Interesting...

But since it's not documented, I doubt that this is reliable behavior.

Cheers Rolf

( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

Comment on Re^3: Order of execution of functions in list Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Order of execution of functions in list by ikegami (Patriarch) on Sep 16, 2013 at 02:08 UTC
But since it's not documented, I doubt that this is reliable behavior. It's an emergent behaviour; it's not by design.	[reply]
Re^5: Order of execution of functions in list ( \(shift @_ ) reference to alias \$_[0] references original ) by Anonymous Monk on Sep 16, 2013 at 03:12 UTC
It's an emergent behaviour; it's not by design. What's that mean (important why)? It goes back far enough (5.8 at least) and its in t/op/sub_lval.t update: since 2001 so it emerged? long ago :) OTOH, a reference to an alias takes a reference to the original and incrementing tat referenced value increments the original -- can't see any aliasing magic being preserves, references reference	[reply]
Re^6: Order of execution of functions in list ( \(shift @_ ) reference to alias \$_[0] references original ) by ikegami (Patriarch) on Sep 20, 2013 at 18:25 UTC
To design something means you've chosen how it behaves. If something is not the result of design, it means noone chose to have it behave in that particular fashion. The behaviour merely emerged. This means no analysis of the behaviour was performed, so it may not be a desired behaviour. so it emerged? long ago :) Sure, but not necessarily relevant.	[reply]