Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote: > I realize that, but still it seems odd that the construct: > &; > actually calls a null-named subroutine rather than giving you a > syntax error. It's not a null-named subroutine. The semicolon is the sub name. As you said later in your message, "Perl is content to try to *call* '&main::;'" -- note the semicolon. > Meta-question: since Perl is content to try to *call* '&main::;' > is there some trickery to *DEFINE* such a subroutine? For > example, trying: > main:: { die; } > gets you what I would have expected in the '..&' case: a syntax > error for a missing subroutine name. *; = sub { die }; -- Keith C. Ivey <kcivey@cpcug.org> Washington, DCThread Previous | Thread Next