Re: Re: Re: Checking for "return undef"

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Checking for "return undef" (changes) by tye (Sage) on Apr 21, 2004 at 19:29 UTC
I recall being surprised that `$_[0]` was a shallow copy and that assigning to `$_[0]` didn't change (the scalar holding) the object that invoked the method. I recall this being discussed in a node here (a while ago). I recall being surprised to hear the opposite (more recently but still at least weeks, probably months ago). So I think there used to be protections (perhaps unintentional) against modifying `$_[0]` in a method call and a while ago Perl changed in this regard. Sorry, I was unable to find hard references in the time allotted. I hope the wild rumors prove of some use anyway. - tye	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Checking for "return undef" (changes)
by tye (Sage) on Apr 21, 2004 at 19:29 UTC

I recall being surprised that $_[0] was a shallow copy and that assigning to $_[0] didn't change (the scalar holding) the object that invoked the method. I recall this being discussed in a node here (a while ago). I recall being surprised to hear the opposite (more recently but still at least weeks, probably months ago).

So I think there used to be protections (perhaps unintentional) against modifying $_[0] in a method call and a while ago Perl changed in this regard.

Sorry, I was unable to find hard references in the time allotted. I hope the wild rumors prove of some use anyway.

- tye

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]