On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 12:57:45PM +0200, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote: > Finally, I think it still is a (bad) hack to have constants in a > language as a sort of second class subroutines with all the oddities > involved (most notably, not being able to use constants in a double > quoted string). So maybe we should keep it like it is (but document > it better) until we figure out what is best. There are plenty of > other things in Perl5 that catch people unsuspectedly. I think we > can live with it. My attitude is: * implementing bareword constants using subs is a hack, but is the best we can do for Perl5. * given that for Perl 5 we need a way of creating const subs, and given that the current technique in constant.pm of using anon subs has poorly-defined and fragile semantics that is likely to trip up casual users of closures (hence this bug report), I think we need a different mechanism for creating them. * I can live with the idea that this new method be marked experimental, that we don't advertise it, that is it never used outside of constant.pm, and that the attribute is named __llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch__ Dave. -- "I do not resent critisism, even when, for the sake of emphasis, it parts for the time with reality". Winston Churchill, House of Commons, 22nd Jan 1941.