How is a left-associative operator "less special" than a non-associative one?
Ehm, most operators in perl are left-associative, so you probably mean R2L short-circuiting but even then I'm not sure what you're trying to say here
And you speak of consistency, but wouldn't it be better to have C<if> be consistent with C<for> and C<while> rather than C<and> and C<or>? (Seeing as C<if> is explicitly a control-flow construct)
'and' is a flow-control construct too.. "foo if bar" and "bar and foo" work identically. Behaviorally 'if' is grouped with 'and'.
But I suppose based on the name people will group the 'if' modifier with 'for' rather than with 'and'..
Then they'll assume they can do:
FOO for @BAR while $BAZ;
dunno.. people try all sorts of things that can't actually be done, but I suppose in this case it's a plausible extrapolation.
I guess to be honestly "consistent" all modifiers would have to become operators, which would bring us back to the multiple statement modifiers to which Larry said no..
I'll rest my case
-- Matthijs van Duin -- May the Forth be with you!
