Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2001
>>>>> "TH" == Ton Hospel <perl5-porters@ton.iguana.be> writes:
TH> Right (didn't know that until you and graham pointed that
TH> out). The essence seem to be we have *two* "lvalue" concepts:
TH> 1) Something we can assign to
TH> 2) Something we can get hold of (through a container) and so
TH> manipulate
Yes; this is the distinction I was trying to make in a complicated way
in another message. (I would call (1) a `syntactic lvalue' and (2) a
`modifiable SV').
TH> It has to be decided which one of these two meanings we should use
TH> Or maybe we should just make them the same concept, i.e., make
TH> things like this work:
TH> sub fun {
TH> shift()=5;
TH> }
This makes some sense, especially from the point of view of
consistency. Taken to the logical extreme, though, it starts to look a
little weird. For instance:
++$x = 10;
$x++ = 10;
shift(@x) = 5;
getpwuid($<) = "smcc";
"Hello, $user" = "greeting";
$x + 2 = 7;
These are all `assignments' that you might want to allow for
consistency, since there's a corresponding assignment through a
reference that goes through without an error. Except for the first,
however, they're all no-ops. (It would be neat if the last set $x to
5, but that's a different feature).
-- Stephen McC
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next