On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 07:10:46PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote: : Yeah, I think so. It might be that the first C<@array[0] = : "something"> is actually valid, and the only things that would be : invalid would be calling mutating methods on the array itself (like : C<pop>).
Maybe not even that restrictive. To the first approximation, I mostly care about whether I have to autovivify on the caller end. I don't if parameter passing is by copy. I also don't if the parameter is a reference but it doesn't have to function as an lvalue within the sub. If we can get more mileage out of the implicit constant declaration, that's fine, but it wasn't my primary motivation. I'm certainly not going to clutter up the language with constant declarations like C++. : These are details that will probably be worked out in the : next Apocalypse, "references". Except the next Apocalypse won't be the next Apocalypse. Larry
