>Tom Christiansen wrote:
>>
>> If you can no longer grow hashes or arrays on demand, does this
>> extend to strings not being able to get bigger, and to integers not
>> being able to become floats?
>>
>> --tom
>Exactly. What do you think :closed should do, Tom?
Something more like old :ronly
Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> If you can no longer grow hashes or arrays on demand, does this
> extend to strings not being able to get bigger, and to integers not
> being able to become floats?
>
> --tom
Exactly. What do you think :closed should do, Tom?
--
David Ni
If you can no longer grow hashes or arrays on demand, does this
extend to strings not being able to get bigger, and to integers not
being able to become floats?
--tom
> today this just came up to my mind, we could have a pragma that
> disable `autovivification' of hash and array keys. Consider the
> follow code snippet:
>
> @arr = ( 0..9 );
> %hash = ( a=>1, b=>2 );
>
> {
> no autovi
e snippet:
> >
> > @arr = ( 0..9 );
> > %hash = ( a=>1, b=>2 );
> >
> > {
> >no autovivify;
> >$arr{10}++; # both are
> >$hash{c}--; # fatal
> > }
> >
> >this way we can eliminate the need to tie any va
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:21:39 +0800, Kenneth Lee wrote:
>oday this just came up to my mind, we could have a pragma that disable
>`autovivification' of hash and array keys. Consider the follow code snippet:
>
> @arr = ( 0..9 );
> %hash = ( a=>1, b=>2 );
>
> {
dear all,
today this just came up to my mind, we could have a pragma that disable
`autovivification' of hash and array keys. Consider the follow code snippet:
@arr = ( 0..9 );
%hash = ( a=>1, b=>2 );
{
no autovivify;
$arr{10}++; # both are
$hash{c}--; # fata
