> As Rick pointed out, there's no problem with overloading =~ for an > object, in the same way it's done with `eq', and one object's > function could return either an object or a closure (a sub > reference), so that a module could even hide the details of whether > it's using the object interface with the overloaded =~ or the new > behaviour of =~ with a sub lvalue. Good point. I think at this stage we're violently agreeing with each other. ;-) DamianThread Next