On 5 Dec 2001, at 14:09, Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
> Bernie Cosell schreef op 05 december 2001:
> > 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.
>
> perl -e'*;=sub {1}; print &;'
good heavens.. the actual subroutine name is semi-colon?? So the name isn't
missing and isn't null, but is ';'. I'm not sure that that doesn't make it
MORE confusing to me --- Are there other punctuation marks that work in that
context??
Three questions:
1) is semicolon the ONLY puncuation mark that has this odd special-dispensation?
2) WHY does perl allow this --- it still seems like a slam-dunk syntax error
situation to me
3) who *discovered* this anomaly? [how does someone even think to TRY something
bizarre like this.....]
I'm not much of a golf fan but I've certainly learned interesting/amazing
things about Perl from the 'holes'.
/bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--
