Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2010
On 15 July 2010 22:16, David Golden <xdaveg@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Zefram <zefram@fysh.org> wrote: >> Precedence and associativity imply certain things about order of >> evaluation, but the implications are minimal. In general, if a language >> does not have other specific guarantees about order of evaluation, any >> order is acceptable for the evaluation of the atomic terms and for the >> operations represented by the operators. The order is constrained only >> by the inherent need for the operands of any single operation to have >> each been fully evaluated before that operation can take place. > > Sounds like something that should go into perlop. I agree, and I think that Jan's comment: <quote> My personal opinion is that any FETCH magic or overloaded operator that has observable side effects is essentially broken and abusing a feature. You can always use a function or method call if you need exact control over how your code is being called. </quote> should, after appropriate editing, be added to the documentation for tie as well. I wonder if we should arrange for a debugging mode where the order that terms were evaluated was reversed, or randomized, or whatever. It would be educational I think to find out just how much breaks. Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"Thread Previous | Thread Next