I'd like a proof to that statement.
There are comments on RT#3105 that were posted on p5p (but off-ticket) about this. Also, COW came up again recently on p5p. It's a publicly readable and searchable mailing list. I don't have time to search right now (Took me a couple days just to get around to writing this!) I'll try when I can.
my proof is that Arthur Bergman, the person who answered to the bug some 8 years ago, said it's a bug.
Just like him, I agree the inconsistency is a bug. I only have a problem with your fix. I have already explained how I think your fix only affects the case that is working correctly.
how many "many" btw? "many" as in "one-two-many"?
Considering there's only a couple of handful of them in total, and how few speak on topics they aren't working on...
You didn't provide neither proof in docs/code,
To my knowledge, the docs are silent on whether literals should return read-only values or modifiable values. Which is why I provided code (contrary to what you said).
In reply to Re^21: ref to read-only alias ... why? (notabug)
by ikegami
in thread ref to read-only alias ... why?
by dk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |