Sorry to patch the patch, but in > -Other sigils binds only to the I<last> argument with that name: > +Other sigil binds only to the I<last> argument with that name: the replacement makes no more sense than the original. "Other sigils bind" or "Any other sigil binds" would work here.
Also, I believe the original of > have an explicit declarator such as C<sub> or C<method>; bare blocks and > -"pointy" subs are never considered to be routines in that sense. To return > +"pointy" blocks are never considered to be routines in that sense. To > return > from a block, use C<leave> instead--see below. is correct. Pointy subs are consistently known as such, and I don't see any reason to rename them: the -> symbol promotes a block (and optional arg list) into an anonymous sub, and the name reflects this. -- "My invention can be exploited for a certain time as a scientific curiosity, but apart from that it has no commercial value whatsoever." Auguste Lumiere, on his and his brother's new invention of the motion- picture camera %% http://surreal.istic.org/ %% It's like a DEATH CIRCUS!
Description: Digital signature