When I return an lvalue, in my mind, I'm returning the address of an object so that the compiler/interpreter can put something in it (has happens to the left side of an assignment).

Vs. if I return an rvalue, In my terminology, I'm only returning the value that was in that address -- so the compiler/interpreter can't assign a new value into the variable location.

If I return an lvalue, the compiler can store a new value. But it can also propagate that value to another lvalue. No problem: I don't care. What I care about is detecting that my lvalue sub has been assigned to (whether or not the value changes is irrelevant).

The rvalue context I would detect in a statement like:

if ($p->url) {...}
[download]

It's the 'lvalue' case where I need to presume that the value in 'url might change, and thus return a more expensive (ex. tied) version so I can update the url's component values.

I don't see how that is problematic.

I don't see how that is problematic.

Semantically, it is problematic because it is not possible the way things are at the moment; and if it is changed, it will break existing code -- which is p5p generally consider sacrosanct.

In my terminology, I'm only returning the value that was in that address -- so the compiler/interpreter can't assign a new value into the variable location.

Implementation wise, lvalue subs always return an lvalue. That's why any attempt to return a constant from an lvalue sub causes an error:

sub x :lvalue { 1 };;
[Can't modify constant item in lvalue subroutine return at (eval 18) l
+ine 1, near "1 }"
[download]

If that was allowed, then x() = 2; would modify that constant.

And even if you only returned an rvalue ("the value that was in that address") when you detected that you were called in an rvalue context -- were that possible -- then it would still break this code:

my $ref = \x(); ## lvalue context, no assignment.

... some time later assign through the ref taken.

$$ref = 'anything at all';
[download]

Currently, and since their inception, that has be both legal and useful.

For a change to be made such that returning an non-lvalue from an lvalue sub was (conditionally) possible; would break any existing code; and the expectation.

FWIW: I wish lvalue subs could inspect the value they are assigned; but I was told very firmly a long time ago that would never be possible; because any assignment happens after the sub returns, in the calling context, long after the sub is finished.

---

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity.

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Suck that fhit

I don't need to return a constant under any circumstance, but if I know I am returning an rvalue, I can return:

p->{_path}
[download]

If something is being assigned to 'path', then I'd know I need the lvalue -- and return something like

$p->{tied_path}

sub callback_for_STORE_into_tied_path { my $p=shift;
  my $newvalue;
  $p->{_path}=$newvalue;
  $p->{_url}=undef;
  ...
  $p->{_path};
}
...later...in 
sub url(;$) { my $p=shift;
  $p->compose_url_from_parts() unless defined $p->{_url};
  $p->{_url}
}
[download]

So if someone want to read path, they would get a simple, direct reference (no tied var overhead), but if they wrote to it, it needs to store the new value, and clear the internal value for _url so it can be re-composed.

At no point should I need to return a constant -- just a choice between the actual var in the hash, or a tied var.

If I knew the lvalue-context, is there a reason why that wouldn't work?

The actual difference between an :lvalue sub and one that isn't returns a copy of the scalar that would otherwise be returned.