The undef $_++ vs $$_++ I think the former is working because what's happening is:
In the second case you're explicitly dereferencing the SVrv to the constant undef and trying to increment that (which fails because undef is a singleton readonly SV*).
Edit: And again yes making explanation by way of the implementation, but I think that's because knowing (sort of) how this is implemented under the covers makes these particular corner cases' behaviors not (as) surprising.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
In reply to Re^8: Shouldn't references be readonly?
by Fletch
in thread Shouldn't LITERAL references be readonly? (updated)
by LanX
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |