if we really about to lose C-style comma, would we have something new instead?
new C<,>,( as I've been told here by wise ones), doesn't guarantee order
in which its operands will be evaluated, and even doesn't guarantee that
they won't be optimised away before evaluating, if all expression is in void
context.. right?
so it will be erroneous to write:
pray_to $_, sacrifice <$virgin> for @evil_gods
because it could be executed as:
sacrifice <$virgin>, pray_to $_ for @evil_gods
that is against rites; or even "optimized away" as:
sacrifice <$virgin> for @evil_gods
which is a senseless loss of costly and rare resources. And I can't just write
pray_to $_ and sacrifice <$virgin> for @evil_gods
because prayer result is almost always undefined, ..but who knows?
I'm thinking about C<then>, analogious to old C<,> (maybe with lower precedence than C<and> and C<or> have?)
pray_to $_ then sacrifice <$virgin> for @evil_gods
hm.. maybe C<then> should make first action in void context (I hate noise when doing business)
P.S. of course, I can just use
for @evil_gods { ... }
but I thought there's more than one way to sacrifice It... I'm just afraid of Repetitive Injure..
BTW, slight improvisations don't not harm in such things...
P.P.S. do we have a way to imply void context on function inside expression, something like C<scalar>, C<+>, C<~>, C<?> do?
-- $_ = join q--, map++ $_=>split q qq, q xitrswzmnsgdqwakzbjwodqkwoqhdrswx xor y yayys x y yxy y x print
