James Mastros wrote:
> > At least it's independent of the sub's name. I wish this could be
> > extended to doing recursive calls without having to say the subs own
> > name, again.
> I agree, making the magic variable be the name of the sub is a bad idea.
>
> Your idea for a name for the currently executing sub is interesting, I
> think. I'm going to fork the thread.
>
> -=- James Mastros
IMO the name of the currently executing sub should be accessed via an
extention to C<caller()>.
caller{subname}
For that matter a reference to the lvalue if any could be
caller{lvalue}
instead of another LNV.
