On 5 Dec 2001, at 12:40, Piers Cawley wrote:
> "Bernie Cosell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 5 Dec 2001, at 18:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> Piers Cawley wrote:
> >> > I think the particular 'creative in the extreme' entry that Andrew was
> >> > referring to was my head.pl that printed 10 lines then crashed using:
> >> >
> >> > #!perl -p
> >> > 11..&
> > Me, too. Is that actually exploiting a bug in perl? [which is legit,
> > of course -- I just seeking some clarification/understanding here].
> > It seems that "&<ENDOFFILE>" is interpreted as a subroutine call to
> > a subtroutine with no name.
>
> It depends on how the -p works. And it's (sort of) documented.
I realize that, but still it seems odd that the construct:
&;
actually calls a null-named subroutine rather than giving you a syntax error.
For example, if I write this perl program:
#!perl
&;
no -p trickery or the like, I'd have *assumed* that that would get me a syntax
error. So I was just musing that it looks like at the very least an un- [semi-
? hidden-?] kind-of-anomaly that Perl doesn't give a syntax error on that.
[sort of like when I first learned of the hack in the -w stuff for the string
"0 but true", which, AFAIK, is also undocumented]
Meta-question: since Perl is content to try to *call* '&main::;' is there some
trickery to *DEFINE* such a subroutine? For example, trying:
main:: { die; }
gets you what I would have expected in the '..&' case: a syntax error for a
missing subroutine name.
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--
