Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2001
Konovalov, Vadim" <vkonovalov@lucent.com> wrote:
> print 'foo'=~/(.*)/ && $1, 'bar'=~/(.*)/ && $1, "\n";
> print 'foo'=~/(.*)/ && "$1", 'bar'=~/(.*)/ && "$1", "\n";
>
>
> results in:
>
> barbar
> foobar
>
> which was unexpected to me.
> While there may be found a way to explain such behaviour, it may result in
> errors that are quite hard to find.
This is not a bug.
It occurs due to the way parameters to functions are handled.
if you call foo($var), then within foo(), $_[0] does not contain a *copy*
of the current value of $var; instead $_[0] is an *alias* of $var - ie
modifying $_[0] actually modifies $var.
Or to put is another way: behind the scenes, foo($var) causes the address
of $var to be passed to foo, rather than its current value being passed.
On the other hand, foo($var+1) causes the expression $var+1 to be evaluated
before the function is called, and the resulting value passed as a read-only
variable to the function.
print 'foo'=~/(.*)/ && $1, 'bar'=~/(.*)/ && $1, "\n";
does the rough equivalent of:
$1 = 'foo';
addressof($_[0]) = addressof($1);
$2 = 'bar';
addressof($_[1]) = addressof($1);
addressof($_[2]) = addressof(readonly_variable("\n"));
print;
Then within print(), its 1st two arguments are both aliased to $1, which
happens to to have the value 'bar';
On the other hand,
print 'foo'=~/(.*)/ && "$1", 'bar'=~/(.*)/ && "$1", "\n";
does the rough equivalent of:
$1 = 'foo';
addressof($_[0]) = addressof(readonly_variable("foo"));
$2 = 'bar';
addressof($_[1]) = addressof(readonly_variable("bar"));
addressof($_[2]) = addressof(readonly_variable("\n"));
print;
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next