Following the discussions from 2 weeks ago, are there any plans to
update the synopsis soon regarding the $! variable? Synopsis 2 still
says that it is conjectural to whether $! is always environmental.
Thanks. -- Darren Duncan
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 09:43:31AM +0100, TSa wrote:
: HaloO,
:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: >My gut-level feeling on this is that $! is going to end up being an
: >"env" variable like $_.
:
: I just re-read about exceptions. Well, I undestand now that $! is
: intented as a variable with a spectrum of m
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
My gut-level feeling on this is that $! is going to end up being an
"env" variable like $_.
I just re-read about exceptions. Well, I undestand now that $! is
intented as a variable with a spectrum of meanings ranging from
1) the return value of a sub, through
2) a
My gut-level feeling on this is that $! is going to end up being an
"env" variable like $_. (If you don't know what "env" is then you've
not read the conjectural parts of S2 lately.) Then the problem reduces
to what you do with an unhandled $! at the end of a lexical scope,
which is probably just
HaloO,
Nicholas Clark wrote:
No, I think not, because the closure on the last line closes over a
read/write variable. It happens that read only reference to the same variable
is passed into the subroutine, but that's fine, because the subroutine never
writes to *its* reference.
So, you argue t
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 12:32:03PM +0100, TSa wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> >The most immediate offender here is the referential passing semantics.
>
> IIRC, the default is to be a read-only ref. Not even local modifications
> are permitted if the 'is copy' property is missing.
>
>
>
HaloO,
Darren Duncan wrote:
The problem is that $! is being treated too much like a global variable
and not enough like a lexical variable. Consider the following example:
Wasn't the idea to have $! only bound in CATCH blocks?
sub foo () {
try {
die MyMessage.new( 'key' => 'dan
TSa skribis 2005-12-05 12:32 (+0100):
> IIRC, the default is to be a read-only ref. Not even local modifications
s/ref/alias/, which you can see as an implicit or automatic reference,
but which we usually don't call that.
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
The most immediate offender here is the referential passing semantics.
IIRC, the default is to be a read-only ref. Not even local modifications
are permitted if the 'is copy' property is missing.
Here is a code case:
sub foo ($x, &code) {
&code();
On 12/5/05, Darren Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Under the current system, a subroutine argument is an alias for the
> container passed to it;
The most immediate offender here is the referential passing semantics.
Here is a code case:
sub foo ($x, &code) {
&code();
say
I've run into a problem today with my Perl 6 coding, which is due to
a perceived design flaw in the current Perl 6 spec (this was
discussed on #perl6 just now, mainly between myself and autrijus), so
I'm bringing it up here.
And yes, autrijus thinks the behaviour I'm seeing in Pugs is
accordi
11 matches
Mail list logo
