Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:06:28AM +0200, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote: > > Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: > > > I agree with the sentiment, but think it would be worth it (perhaps in > > > conjuction with a short warning in perlfunc/exists that exists on @_ > > > or @DB::args may not work). > > > > > > The only complete fix I see would be to also make av_reify replace all > > > PL_sv_undefs with new sv's, something like (untested): > > > > That's what Dave was suggesting with using an SV placeholder. > > Unless I'm just being very dense, that's not at all the same.
Or I haven't fully understood what Dave suggested... He wrote : > Can't really be fixed short of using some other static SV to mark unused > elements (cf PL_sv_placeholder), but personally I think that's throwing > good money after bad. which I thought was in the context of array reification. The difference with your second patch is that you're creating new undefined SVs...
