Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2012
Olivier Mengu?? via RT wrote: >Blessing multiple times the same value multiple time can only lead to >unexpected behavior No, it has perfectly well-defined behaviour, and can reasonably be used deliberately. >So I think that the proper fix for this issue would be that bless die >for non-closure subs as it does in the other constants cases (where it >dies with "Can't bless non-reference value"). I get "Modification of a read-only value attempted" if I try, say, bless(\1, "Foo"). Note that it's the thing the reference points at, not the reference itself, that gets blessed, so bless(1, "Foo"), which is what gets "Can't bless non-reference value", is nonsensical rather than just not permitted. It would be vaguely sensible for non-closure subs to be marked readonly and so be unblessable, but it seems equally sensible for closures too. It should be possible to bless subs somehow, though, so we can't very well have all (non-closure) subs readonly to start with. It's also way too late to change the default behaviour. If you want a sub to be readonly that can be arranged (Internals::SetReadOnly from the CPAN version of Internals), and you can sensibly have a :ro attribute to express it. It's not sensible to change the existing behaviour of blessing subs. -zeframThread Previous | Thread Next