Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2011
* Reverend Chip <rev.chip@gmail.com> [2011-07-16 01:20]: > On 7/15/2011 2:36 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > > And if you’ll allow me to remark, unfounded claims about > > safety seem far more the territory of ideology and bragging > > rights to me. :-) > > Compared to non-readonly aliasing, readonly aliasing is > unquestionably safer. But no one is talking about trading one for the other. OTOH you *are* talking about trading copying for read-only aliasing. And you have not made an argument about how that buys appreciable added safety. > The whole "unfounded" thing is, again, baseless. Unfounded does not mean untrue. Many ideas seem self-evidently good or right until you try them in practice. That does not usually prove them wrong, but will often reveal caveats that weren’t casually apparent beforehand. Has there in fact been pervasive use of making things read-only, such that people have found all the problematic interactions, edge cases, annoying inconveniences and so on? To my knowledge, this is not the case, so “unfounded” it is. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>Thread Previous | Thread Next