"Bernie Cosell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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?
[FX: Buffs nails on lapel]
>[how does someone even think to TRY something bizarre like this.....]
Well, I was down to
#!perl -p
11..&q
And then I thought, "Hmm... I wonder" and chopped off another
character and what do you know, it worked. Then I worked out why it
worked.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
