in reply to Inlining a "lexically-scoped scalar which has no other references"

Right off the bat, the docs are unclear. Other than which reference? The pad's?

And then there's the issue that my $lex; produces a lexical var, but isn't one itself. Does that matter?

Control: 

>type test.pl && perl -MO=Concise,-exec test.pl 2>&1 | find "proto"
sub with_proto()  { 4 }
sub without_proto { 4 }

with_proto();
without_proto();

                                 <---- Note absence of "with_proto"
5  <#> gv[*without_proto] s      <---- Not constant

[download]

Tests: 

>type test.pl && perl -MO=Concise,-exec test.pl 2>&1 | find "proto"
sub with_proto()  { my $lex }
sub without_proto { my $lex }

with_proto();
without_proto();

4  <#> gv[*with_proto] s         <---- Not constant
8  <#> gv[*without_proto] s      <---- Not constant


>type test.pl && perl -MO=Concise,-exec test.pl 2>&1 | find "proto"
my $lex = 4;
sub with_proto()  { $lex }
sub without_proto { $lex }

with_proto();
without_proto();

8  <#> gv[*with_proto] s         <---- Not constant
c  <#> gv[*without_proto] s      <---- Not constant


>type test.pl && perl -MO=Concise,-exec test.pl 2>&1 | find "proto"
{ my $lex = 4; sub with_proto()  { $lex } }
{ my $lex = 4; sub without_proto { $lex } }

with_proto();
without_proto();

i  <#> gv[*with_proto] s         <---- Not constant
m  <#> gv[*without_proto] s      <---- Not constant

[download]

Bah, let's try references. 

>type test.pl && perl -MO=Concise,-exec test.pl 2>&1 | find "proto"
sub with_proto()  { \my $lex }
sub without_proto { \my $lex }

with_proto();
without_proto();

4  <#> gv[*with_proto] s         <---- Not constant
8  <#> gv[*without_proto] s      <---- Not constant


>type test.pl && perl -MO=Concise,-exec test.pl 2>&1 | find "proto"
my $lex = 4;
sub with_proto()  { \$lex }
sub without_proto { \$lex }

with_proto();
without_proto();

8  <#> gv[*with_proto] s         <---- Not constant
c  <#> gv[*without_proto] s      <---- Not constant


>type test.pl && perl -MO=Concise,-exec test.pl 2>&1 | find "proto"
{ my $lex = 4; sub with_proto()  { \$lex } }
{ my $lex = 4; sub without_proto { \$lex } }

with_proto();
without_proto();

i  <#> gv[*with_proto] s         <---- Not constant
m  <#> gv[*without_proto] s      <---- Not constant

[download]

lvalue? 

>type test.pl && perl -MO=Concise,-exec test.pl 2>&1 | find "proto"
sub with_proto()  :lvalue { my $lex }
sub without_proto :lvalue { my $lex }

with_proto();
without_proto();

4  <#> gv[*with_proto] s
8  <#> gv[*without_proto] s


>type test.pl && perl -MO=Concise,-exec test.pl 2>&1 | find "proto"
my $lex = 4;
sub with_proto()  :lvalue { $lex }
sub without_proto :lvalue { $lex }

with_proto();
without_proto();

8  <#> gv[*with_proto] s
c  <#> gv[*without_proto] s


>type test.pl && perl -MO=Concise,-exec test.pl 2>&1 | find "proto"
{ my $lex = 4; sub with_proto()  :lvalue { $lex } }
{ my $lex = 4; sub without_proto :lvalue { $lex } }

with_proto();
without_proto();

i  <#> gv[*with_proto] s
m  <#> gv[*without_proto] s

[download]

No more ideas.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Inlining a "lexically-scoped scalar which has no other references"
by LanX (Saint) on Sep 28, 2009 at 01:46 UTC
    thx, ikegami these are pretty much all the tests I already ran. 8-|

    I think it's an old optimization feature that got dropped/lost, without updating the docs.

    If anyone has access to a fairly old perl5 version, it would be nice to know what these test produce... He doesn't need to use B::Concise, it's documented that redefining a "constant function" always has to give a warning!

    so plz, just run this code, and check for a warning:

    no warnings;

my $lex = 4;         # file scoped lexical

#--- normal
# inner scope
sub with_proto ()  { my $lex }

# outer scope
{
  my $lex = 4; 
  sub with_proto() { $lex } 
}

# file scope
sub with_proto()  { $lex }

#--- reference
# inner scope
sub with_proto()  {\ my $lex }

# outer scope
{
  my $lex = 4; 
  sub with_proto() {\ $lex } 
}

# file scope
sub with_proto()  {\ $lex }


#------ lvalue

#--- normal
# inner scope
sub with_proto() :lvalue { my $lex }

# outer scope
{
  my $lex = 4; 
  sub with_proto() :lvalue { $lex } 
}

# file scope
sub with_proto() :lvalue { $lex }

#--- reference
# lvalue references are not feasible, because of
#   "Can't modify single ref constructor in lvalue subroutine"




#------ overriding constant function throws always a warning
sub with_proto () {4} 

# uncommenting garanties a warning
# sub with_proto () {5}

    [download]

    Cheers Rolf

[reply]
[d/l]

      The oldest I have is 5.6.0, but it doesn't give a warning even when uncommenting the last line.

      Changing no warnings; to use warnings; shows that the following creates a constant in 5.6.0 and 5.6.1, but not in 5.8.0: 

      sub with_proto ()  { my $lex }

      [download]
      >c:\progs\perl560\bin\perl test.pl
Use of uninitialized value at test.pl line 12.
Constant subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 12.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 16.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 20.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 25.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 29.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 36.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 41.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 45.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 55.
Constant subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 58.

>c:\progs\perl561\bin\perl test.pl
Use of uninitialized value at test.pl line 12.
Constant subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 12.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 16.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 20.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 25.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 29.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 36.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 41.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 45.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 55.
Constant subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 58.

>c:\progs\perl580\bin\perl test.pl
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 12.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 16.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 20.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 25.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 29.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 36.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 41.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 45.
Subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 55.
Constant subroutine with_proto redefined at test.pl line 58.

      [download]

      Update: I identified the wrong one. Fixed.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
        How does one use that?!?!
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom