Re: There is a way to LOCK a SCALAR?

Update: As sauoq++ and duff++ point out, my brain was in neutral:(

~~The are several ways of approximating it, but the easiest to really create a simple, readonly scalar is Scalar::Util::readonly().~~

It is even part of the standard distribution in the most recent versions.

Examine what is said, not who speaks.

"Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
"Think for yourself!" - Abigail
Hooray!

Comment on Re: There is a way to LOCK a SCALAR?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: There is a way to LOCK a SCALAR? by sauoq (Abbot) on Dec 18, 2003 at 19:49 UTC
How will that help? `Scalar::Util::readonly()` is for checking whether a scalar is readonly, not for creating a readonly scalar. I'd second the method that Zaxo suggests in his update. That's the "old-fashioned" way to create constants. Here's how to use `Scalar::Util::readonly()` to prove it works nicely... `perl -MScalar::Util=readonly -le '*f = \"foo"; print readonly($f)' 8388608` [download] -sauoq "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Re: There is a way to LOCK a SCALAR? by duff (Parson) on Dec 18, 2003 at 19:49 UTC
Doesn't Scalar::Util::readonly() just tell you if the scalar is readonly or not? I.e., you can't create a readonly scalar from it. duff	[reply]