On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 1:30 PM +1000 8/6/02, Damian Conway wrote:
> >Luke Palmer asked:
> >
> >>Does:
> >>
> >> print %foo{bar}{baz};
> >>
> >>still create %foo{bar} as a hashref if it doesn't exist?
> >
> >It is my very strong hope that it will not.
>
> Unless Larry de
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
: However, will the "func($x{1}{2}{3})" case cause an implementation problem?
This is why the new function type signatures will assume that
parameters are constant. If you want a modifiable parameter, you
have to say "is rw". Then it's considered an
From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Of course, there are issues here if the code modifies those
> variables, since the issue of whether a variable is rw is
> really distinct from whether it represents a pass by value
> or reference. Slapping a "constant" on it is a bald-faced
> attempt to get th
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: > Of course, there are issues here if the code modifies those
: > variables, since the issue of whether a variable is rw is
: > really distinct from whether it represents a pass by value
: > or reference. Slappin
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
> : However, will the "func($x{1}{2}{3})" case cause an implementation problem?
>
> This is why the new function type signatures will assume that
> parameters are constant. If you want a modifiable parameter,
> In essence, all Perl 5 functions have a signature of (*@_ is rw).
> Perhaps the translator can turn some of those into (*@_). What'd
> really be cool is if it could pick up an initial
>
> my ($a, $b, $c) = @_;
Excuse my ignorance here, but I thought the plan for backwards
compatibility wit
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 03:06:40PM -0400, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
> The only accurate way to know if the code modifies the variables is to do
> some sort of dataflow analysis, and it can't be 100% accurate even then.
> (Suppose a "shift" may or may not happen, depending on the parameters, then
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 03:06:40PM -0400, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
>
> > The only accurate way to know if the code modifies the variables is to do
> > some sort of dataflow analysis, and it can't be 100% accurate even then.
> > (Suppose a "shift" ma
> "NC" == Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
NC> Well, perl5 does already manage to avoid auto-vivifying hash keys
NC> when they are used as subroutine arguments. It uses magic, rather
NC> than dataflow analysis:
NC> sub rval {
NC> my $a = $_[0];
NC> }
NC> sub lval {
Uri Guttman wrote:
[ CCs stripped ]
> ... what if you passed \$a{llama}{alpaca}? even as a read only param,
> you could deref later through the ref in another sub that gets passed it
> from this sub.
If I understand Dan's proposal ()
for a change in the KEYed methods correctly, this would wo
10 matches
Mail list logo
