"David M. Lloyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, David Nesting wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 09:37:39AM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
>> : Yep, but in Perl5, this was never very clean or obvious to the
>> : casual programmer. Constants have been coming of age in Perl,
>> : and they're kind of scary if they're not constant.
>>
>> On one hand, one might say that a developer changing a constant's
>> binding in order to change its value is probably doing so because he
>> knows what he's doing. As I understand things, constants are really
>> just read-only variables. Do we necessarily want to make a special
>> case out of them and make the variable read-only as well as locking
>> down the symbol itself against re-binding?
>
> Upon reflection, I agree with Me. Nesting... I guess if it were some new
> Perl 6 programmer complaining to me that his constants aren't constant I'd
> say to that person: "It's nobody's fault but yours that you didn't read
> the language documentation before using 'is const'."
>
> It really comes down to adjusting your thinking to understand the
> difference between a variable and its value. Once you do that, the
> proposed behaviour of "is const" makes perfect sense.
Do I get to do the 'The name of this song is called "Haddock's Eyes"'
bit from Alice Through The Looking Glass now?
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
