Re: pugs: rw block parameters
On 8/24/06, Audrey Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mark, can you add a test to t/statements/for.t? A commit bit is on its way to your inbox. :-) Done. Tests 37 (implicit "rw $_") and 38 (explicit "-> $x is rw") add to for.t as of r12968. -- Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: pugs: rw block parameters
On 8/24/06, Audrey Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mark, can you add a test to t/statements/for.t? A commit bit is on
its way to your inbox. :-)
Happily, as soon as I receive it.
Upon further investigation I see that the problem is not rw parameters
per se, but the ability to pass individual lvalue items into them.
That is, this works (and a test for it is already in for.t):
my @a = (0..2); for @a { $_++ }
say @a; # 1,2,3
But this dies with the "Can't modify constant item: VRef " message:
my ($a,$b,$c) = 0..2; for ($a,$b,$c) { $_++; }
That may be what you fixed; I haven't built r12675 yet to see. But
it's not what I thought the problem was. :)
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: pugs: rw block parameters
在 2006/8/25 上午 4:37 時，Larry Wall 寫到：
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 03:11:10PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: On 8/24/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:01:43PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: >: Sorry if this is a known question, but I didn't see it
mentioned in the
: >: recent archive or FAQ.
: >:
: >: for ($a, $b) { $_ = ... }
: >:
: >: gives me a "Can't modify constant item: VRef ".
: >
: >Which is correct as the default.
:
: Not according to the spec. S04 says:
Oops, sorry, was confusing implicit $_ with explicit ->$_. You are
correct.
And indeed I confused it as well. Fixed as of r12675.
Mark, can you add a test to t/statements/for.t? A commit bit is on
its way to your inbox. :-)
Thanks!
Audrey
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: pugs: rw block parameters
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 03:11:10PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: On 8/24/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:01:43PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: >: Sorry if this is a known question, but I didn't see it mentioned in the
: >: recent archive or FAQ.
: >:
: >: for ($a, $b) { $_ = ... }
: >:
: >: gives me a "Can't modify constant item: VRef ".
: >
: >Which is correct as the default.
:
: Not according to the spec. S04 says:
Oops, sorry, was confusing implicit $_ with explicit ->$_. You are correct.
Larry
Re: pugs: rw block parameters
On 8/24/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:01:43PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: Sorry if this is a known question, but I didn't see it mentioned in the
: recent archive or FAQ.
:
: for ($a, $b) { $_ = ... }
:
: gives me a "Can't modify constant item: VRef ".
Which is correct as the default.
Not according to the spec. S04 says:
If you rely on C<$_> as the implicit parameter to a block,
then [it] is considered read/write by default. That is,
the construct:
for @foo {...}
is actually short for:
for @foo -> $_ is rw {...}
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: pugs: rw block parameters
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:01:43PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: Sorry if this is a known question, but I didn't see it mentioned in the
: recent archive or FAQ.
:
: for ($a, $b) { $_ = ... }
:
: gives me a "Can't modify constant item: VRef ".
Which is correct as the default.
: Making it explicitly rw doesn't help:
:
: for ($a, $b) -> $x is rw { $x = ... }
:
: Is this a "haven't gotten around to rw parameters in blocks yet" or a
: regression?
Not implemented, I think, but could be a regression. In any event, not
right currently.
Larry
pugs: rw block parameters
Sorry if this is a known question, but I didn't see it mentioned in the
recent archive or FAQ.
for ($a, $b) { $_ = ... }
gives me a "Can't modify constant item: VRef ". Making it
explicitly rw doesn't help:
for ($a, $b) -> $x is rw { $x = ... }
Is this a "haven't gotten around to rw parameters in blocks yet" or a
regression?
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
