Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2013
On Sat Jun 29 10:13:54 2013, sprout wrote: > On Sat Jun 29 08:06:12 2013, jkeenan wrote: > > Your fourth call is not equivalent to your third call. There's no '//' > > operator imposing a context on $array[-1]. Perl looks at that variable > > directly and notes that it runs afoul of the error condition described > > above. You're asking for $array[-1] to spring to life. I'm sure that > > there are others who can explain better than I can why we treat that as > > a fatal error -- but fatal it is nonetheless. > > Whether this is a bug or no, it is certainly surprising--and fixable. > I think what is more surprising is that the poster's second and fourth cases behave differently, i.e., that func($array[0]) has at least the appearance of being well-behaved, whereas func($array[-1] generates a fatal error. > It’s just a matter of tweaking the defer logic in pp_aelem. Then rvalue > uses of $_[0] within the function will just work, but assignment to > $_[0] will croak with the same error (i.e., the error will be delayed as > long as possible). > Do we really want to do that? --- via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: open https://rt.perl.org:443/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=118691Thread Previous | Thread Next