Re^6: Why doesn't SUPER cause dead loop here?

Did you read what you linked to?

Yes , did you?

In case there's any confusion, shift->foo() and $class->foo(@_) are perfectly safe, it's shift->foo(@_) that's not.

Comment on Re^6: Why doesn't SUPER cause dead loop here?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Why doesn't SUPER cause dead loop here? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Sep 02, 2011 at 09:37 UTC
Yes , did you? Yes. There's nothing in the linked post to support your false that Perl must execute the `shift(@_)` before the `@_` on the right. Nowhere in perltoot or in the other document you linked is `@_` both used and modified in the same statement. None of the three links show what you claimed they do. And still, its used all over CORE Thank you. This is all I asked for. So much code using that undocumented behaviour means it's not likely to change, at least not without a good long deprecation cycle.	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^7: Why doesn't SUPER cause dead loop here?
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Sep 02, 2011 at 09:37 UTC

Yes , did you?

Yes.

There's nothing in the linked post to support your false that Perl must execute the shift(@_) before the @_ on the right.

Nowhere in perltoot or in the other document you linked is @_ both used and modified in the same statement.

None of the three links show what you claimed they do.

And still, its used all over CORE

Thank you. This is all I asked for. So much code using that undocumented behaviour means it's not likely to change, at least not without a good long deprecation cycle.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]