On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, David Nesting wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 09:37:39AM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote: > : Yep, but in Perl5, this was never very clean or obvious to the > : casual programmer. Constants have been coming of age in Perl, > : and they're kind of scary if they're not constant. > > On one hand, one might say that a developer changing a constant's > binding in order to change its value is probably doing so because he > knows what he's doing. As I understand things, constants are really > just read-only variables. Do we necessarily want to make a special > case out of them and make the variable read-only as well as locking > down the symbol itself against re-binding?
Upon reflection, I agree with Me. Nesting... I guess if it were some new Perl 6 programmer complaining to me that his constants aren't constant I'd say to that person: "It's nobody's fault but yours that you didn't read the language documentation before using 'is const'." It really comes down to adjusting your thinking to understand the difference between a variable and its value. Once you do that, the proposed behaviour of "is const" makes perfect sense. - D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
