develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from March 2017

Re: [perl #129068] SV *Perl_cv_const_sv_or_av(const CV *const):Assertion `((svtype)((cv)->sv_flags & 0xff)) == SVt_PVCV ||((svtype)((cv)->sv_flags & 0xff)) == SVt_PVFM' failed (op.c:7926)

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Zefram
Date:
March 29, 2017 02:27
Subject:
Re: [perl #129068] SV *Perl_cv_const_sv_or_av(const CV *const):Assertion `((svtype)((cv)->sv_flags & 0xff)) == SVt_PVCV ||((svtype)((cv)->sv_flags & 0xff)) == SVt_PVFM' failed (op.c:7926)
Message ID:
20170329022741.GM6453@fysh.org
Father Chrysostomos via RT wrote:
>One that I can think of is unary plus.

Ah, indeed, that could appear in a legitimate program.  It's not a usage
to preserve, there being no need for such disambiguation in this context.
(If we did want to preserve it, for consistency a similar unary plus
ought to be permitted on parameters declared in subroutine signatures.)

A related usage is nested parens.  These are legal, don't break anything,
and could arise by accident from refactoring.  But, like unary plus,
they also don't achieve anything in the "my" context, and it's not worth
the complexity of preserving their permissibility.

-zefram

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About