yylval.opval->op_private = OPpCONST_ENTERED;
gv_fetchpv(
PL_tokenbuf+1,
- PL_in_eval
- ? (GV_ADDMULTI | GV_ADDINEVAL)
- /* If the identifier refers to a stash, don't autovivify it.
- * Change 24660 had the side effect of causing symbol table
- * hashes to always be defined, even if they were freshly
- * created and the only reference in the entire program was
- * the single statement with the defined %foo::bar:: test.
- * It appears that all code in the wild doing this actually
- * wants to know whether sub-packages have been loaded, so
- * by avoiding auto-vivifying symbol tables, we ensure that
- * defined %foo::bar:: continues to be false, and the existing
- * tests still give the expected answers, even though what
- * they're actually testing has now changed subtly.
- */
- : !(*PL_tokenbuf == '%' && *(d = PL_tokenbuf + strlen(PL_tokenbuf) - 1) == ':' && d[-1] == ':'),
+ /* If the identifier refers to a stash, don't autovivify it.
+ * Change 24660 had the side effect of causing symbol table
+ * hashes to always be defined, even if they were freshly
+ * created and the only reference in the entire program was
+ * the single statement with the defined %foo::bar:: test.
+ * It appears that all code in the wild doing this actually
+ * wants to know whether sub-packages have been loaded, so
+ * by avoiding auto-vivifying symbol tables, we ensure that
+ * defined %foo::bar:: continues to be false, and the existing
+ * tests still give the expected answers, even though what
+ * they're actually testing has now changed subtly.
+ */
+ (*PL_tokenbuf == '%' && *(d = PL_tokenbuf + strlen(PL_tokenbuf) - 1) == ':' && d[-1] == ':'
+ ? 0
+ : PL_in_eval ? (GV_ADDMULTI | GV_ADDINEVAL) : GV_ADD),
((PL_tokenbuf[0] == '$') ? SVt_PV
: (PL_tokenbuf[0] == '@') ? SVt_PVAV
: SVt_PVHV));