Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2011
On 7/11/2011 6:38 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Reverend Chip <rev.chip@gmail.com> [2011-07-11 04:05]:
>> On 7/10/2011 5:15 PM, Father Chrysostomos wrote:
>>> I can’t speak for Perl 6, but making something read-only in
>>> Perl 5 just feels un-Perl-5-ish.
>> Perl 5 has to evolve
> But when is that an actual necessity, and when is it merely an
> excuse for muddling through without careful thought?
In the end these are matters of intuition and judgment. My judgment is
that Perl does not consist entirely of mutable things; only mostly. Or
would you like to revoke the idea of locked hashes? Would your
preferred dialect of Perl not even have SvREADONLY?
>> and Perl 5 has always had some read-only things. Or are you
>> suggesting that ${\3.14159} should be mutable? :)
> Yes it should be. It isn’t now, because that would mutate the
> value in the optree, but that’s exposing an implementation detail...
I'm afraid we'll have to disagree about that. "Variables don't,
constants aren't" is supposed to be a joke, not a design principle.
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next