"Bernie Cosell" <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> 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 11..&q 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 worked. -- Piers "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