Bernie Cosell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I realize that, but still it seems odd that the construct:
> &;
> actually calls a null-named subroutine rather than giving you a
> syntax error.
It's not a null-named subroutine. The semicolon is the sub
name. As you said later in your message, "Perl is content to
try to *call* '&main::;'" -- note the semicolon.
> 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.
*; = sub { die };
--
Keith C. Ivey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Washington, DC
