develooper Front page | perl.fwp | Postings from December 2001

Re: The Santa Claus Golf Apocalypse

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Piers Cawley
December 5, 2001 05:51
Re: The Santa Claus Golf Apocalypse
Message ID:
"Bernie Cosell" <> writes:

> On 5 Dec 2001, at 14:09, Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
>> Bernie Cosell schreef op 05 december 2001:
>> > 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.
>> perl -e'*;=sub {1}; print &;'
> good heavens.. the actual subroutine name is semi-colon??  So the name isn't 
> missing and isn't null, but is ';'.  I'm not sure that that doesn't make it 
> MORE confusing to me --- Are there other punctuation marks that work in that 
> context??
> Three questions:
> 1) is semicolon the ONLY puncuation mark that has this odd special-dispensation?
> 2) WHY does perl allow this --- it still seems like a slam-dunk syntax error 
> situation to me
> 3) who *discovered* this anomaly? 

[FX: Buffs nails on lapel]

>[how does someone even think to TRY something bizarre like this.....]

Well, I was down to 

#!perl -p

And then I thought, "Hmm... I wonder" and chopped off another
character and what do you know, it worked. Then I worked out why it


   "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
    possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
         -- Jane Austen?

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About