Hong Zhang wrote: > This code should NEVER work, period. People will just ask for trouble > with this kind of code. Actually I meant to have specified ">>" as the mode, i.e. append, then what I originally said holds true. This behaviour is predictable and dependable in the current perl implementation. Without the >> the file will contain just "bar\n". The point is that we have a stated goal of preserving the existing semantics, and of allowing existing perl5 code to continue to work. Despite what some people seem to think this is *not* a clean slate situation. We may well have to deliberately carry over questionable but depended-upon behaviour into perl6. my $fh = do { local *FH; *FH; } for example, better continue to work. Alan Burlison
- Re: Garbage collection (was Re: J... Tim Bunce
- Re: Garbage collection (was Re: J... Branden
- Re: Garbage collection (was Re: J... Uri Guttman
- Re: Garbage collection (was Re: J... Tim Bunce
- Re: Garbage collection (was Re: J... Uri Guttman
- Re: Garbage collection (was Re: J... Branden
- Re: Garbage collection (was Re: J... Damien Neil
- Re: Garbage collection (was Re: J... Branden
- Re: Garbage collection (was Re: J... Alan Burlison
- Re: Garbage collection (was Re: J... Hong Zhang
- Re: Garbage collection (was Re: J... Alan Burlison
- Re: Garbage collection (was Re: J... Hong Zhang
- Re: Garbage collection (was Re: J... Alan Burlison
- Re: Garbage collection (was Re: J... Ken Fox
- Re: Garbage collection (was Re: J... Hong Zhang
- Re: Garbage collection (was Re: J... Ken Fox
- Re: Garbage collection (was Re: J... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Garbage collection (was Re: J... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Garbage collection (was Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/) David Mitchell