Re^4: eval order of args to a sub

Post-increment seems to be unique in that it creates an anonymous value.

That doesn't suprise me. post-increment and post-decrement return (a copy of) the old value, while changing the original value. What I mean is, since post-*crement creates 2 values from one variable, you need a copy somewhere, and it makes sense (for ease of coding and performance - perl variables are passed by reference internally) to increment the original value and create a copy as the return value of the *crementation.

"What should it profit a man, if he should win a flame war, yet lose his cool?"

Comment on Re^4: eval order of args to a sub

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: eval order of args to a sub by TGI (Parson) on May 31, 2007 at 00:29 UTC
Absolutely, the post-crement operators MUST create an anonymous value, so they do. I wonder though, what the "expected" or "natural" behavior of the other constructs I posted should be. `Construct Behavior Expected $i += 2 \$i ??? $i++ Anon. Anon. $i + 1 Anon. Anon. $i++ Anon. Anon. ++$i \$i Anon. $i=2 \$i ???` [download] From reading the other posts here, I feel comfortable saying that people expect ++$i to pass an anonymous value. I'm not 100% sure what I'd expect the assignment operators (=, =, etc) to pass. Since most langauges pass by value, I guess I'd expect the assignment operators to pass anonymous values equal to the value assigned to $i. For example for `foo($i=2)` my faulty intuition is that `foo()` would get an anonymous 2 in `$_[0]`. TGI says moo	[reply] [d/l]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^5: eval order of args to a sub
by TGI (Parson) on May 31, 2007 at 00:29 UTC

Absolutely, the post-*crement operators MUST create an anonymous value, so they do.

I wonder though, what the "expected" or "natural" behavior of the other constructs I posted should be.

Construct  Behavior  Expected
$i += 2    \$i       ???
$i++       Anon.     Anon.
$i + 1     Anon.     Anon.
$i++       Anon.     Anon.
++$i       \$i       Anon.
$i=2       \$i       ???
[download]

From reading the other posts here, I feel comfortable saying that people expect ++$i to pass an anonymous value. I'm not 100% sure what I'd expect the assignment operators (=, *=, etc) to pass. Since most langauges pass by value, I guess I'd expect the assignment operators to pass anonymous values equal to the value assigned to $i. For example for foo($i=2) my faulty intuition is that foo() would get an anonymous 2 in $_[0].

TGI says moo

[reply]
[d/l]