in reply to Re^4: ref to read-only alias ... why? (notabug)
in thread ref to read-only alias ... why?

Thats what I expected.

> I wonder why.

IMHO legacy code would break if you die here.

But a warning would be great.

Cheers Rolf

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: ref to read-only alias ... why? (notabug)
by dk (Chaplain) on Jan 06, 2012 at 18:08 UTC
    I agree on a warning, it would be a practical thing, after all. And after that, a real fix with 'die' a couple versions later should help the legacy code.

    Well anyway, I found the code suggested by ikegami, so would you guys review the patch please? 

    --- pp.c.0    2012-01-06 01:07:34.511988700 +0100
+++ pp.c    2012-01-06 19:04:06.311428300 +0100
@@ -515,9 +515,11 @@
     SvTEMP_off(sv);
     SvREFCNT_inc_void_NN(sv);
     }
-    else if (SvPADTMP(sv) && !IS_PADGV(sv))
+    else if (SvPADTMP(sv) && !IS_PADGV(sv)) {
+        Perl_ck_warner(aTHX_ packWARN(WARN_MISC),
+         "Implicit copy of a read-only scalar due to aliasing");
         sv = newSVsv(sv);
-    else {
+    } else {
     SvTEMP_off(sv);
     SvREFCNT_inc_void_NN(sv);
     }

    [download]
[reply]
[d/l]
[reply]
        Could you please clarify which the "working case" is in your opinion?

        I agree with tye that there are good arguments for both perspectives.

        Cheers Rolf

[reply]
        Well, I give up then.
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom