in reply to Re^7: Order of evaluation/interpolation of references (op order)
in thread Order of evaluation/interpolation of references

Or are you suggesting that making a copy of the non-last operand of every operator is somehow a good idea?

Sorry, but that makes no sense in relation to what I posted.

I'm not going to explain it again, so either re-read it more carefully, or just forget it.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

The start of some sanity?
  • Comment on Re^8: Order of evaluation/interpolation of references (op order)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^9: Order of evaluation/interpolation of references (op order)
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 09, 2012 at 01:30 UTC

    Sorry, but that makes no sense in relation to what I posted.

    That's why I asked what you considered to be a bug. My guess: The lack of copying by operators causes other operators to behave differently than you'd expect.

    If you deliberately hide information, you only have yourself to blame for any ensuing confusion.

[reply]

      Again. Nothing in your post bears any relation upon what I posted. (Your doing this a lot lately?)

      You might just as well have posted: "The french dog lick mustard blue sky cheese". It would make just as much sense.

      Read the damn post! Then reply in whole, complete, relevant, joined up sentences.

      And I hid nothing.

      With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

      The start of some sanity?
[reply]

        Wow. I saw ikegamis post 3 times, and it looked radically different all three times.

        Current 

        <blockquote><p><i>Sorry, but that makes no sense in relation to what I
+ posted.</i></blockquote>

<p>That's why I asked what you considered to be a bug. My guess: The l
+ack of copying by operators causes other operators to behave differen
+tly than you'd expect.

<p>If you deliberately hide information, you only have yourself to bla
+me for any ensuing confusion

        [download]

        Before that 

         
<blockquote><p><i>Sorry, but that makes no sense in relation to what I
+ posted.</i></blockquote>

<p>Then what you posted incorrectly assumes lvalue results only affect
+ concatenation.

        [download]

        Before that it was something equally grumpy about being confused, but not resembling the above two sentiments in any other way.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

        And I hid nothing.

        You didn't answer my questions.

        Furthermore, the post has nothing to do with the one to which it is a reply, and you provided no explanation to that effect whatsoever.

        It has been answered, with a properly updated title.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom