Re: [ID 20000415.002] v.5.6.0

On Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 02:31:35PM -0400, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 02:01:44PM -0400, Ronald J Kimball wrote:
> > > > Ex2:
> > > >   @_ = map{
> > > >       $_ += 1;
> > > >   }(5,2,7,0,7,7);
> > > > 
> > > >   Exception: Modification of a read-only value attempted at 1.pl line 1
> > > 
> > > Why are you surprised?  Did you mean map {$_ + 1} ?
> > 
> > He's surprised because this doesn't produce the same error:
> > 
> > @_ = map {
> >     $_ += 1;
> > } 1 .. 6;
> 
> Oh, *this* bug:
> 
> > perl -wle "sub a {map {print; ++$_} 1..3} a;print'';a"
> 1
> 2
> 3
> 
> 2
> 3
> 4
> 
> It was discussed here many years ago already.  It is my long-held
> opinion that these values (produced at compile time) should be marked
> read-only.

There's also this:

http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2000-07/msg00059.html
 
> Ilya

-- 
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
        # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
        # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen

• [ID 20000415.002] v.5.6.0 by Albert N. MICHEEV
• [perl #3105] 1..N not marked read only. by Father Chrysostomos via RT
• Re: [ID 20000415.002] v.5.6.0 by Ilya Zakharevich
• Re: [ID 20000415.002] v.5.6.0 by Ronald J Kimball
• Re: [ID 20000415.002] v.5.6.0 by Ilya Zakharevich
• Re: [ID 20000415.002] v.5.6.0 by Jarkko Hietaniemi
• Re: [ID 20000415.002] v.5.6.0 by Jarkko Hietaniemi