Hi, Simon Cozens: > >It _is_ broken. > It works. You lose. For some, but by no means all, definitions of "it works". :-/ > Now, can we start being descriptive computer linguists instead of > I was being descriptive. I was describing _me_. Perhaps I should have been stating this more clearly. Sorry. > prescriptive ones? We support Perl 4 and before not because we think > it's the best solution, but because it's what people use. > Thus, if they really want/need to use perl4, they should use #!/usr/bin/perl4 It's a smaller change than the "replace @ by \@ in all double-quote strings" we forced them to use when switching to per5(?). I'm not really advocating to drop the main'foo stuff, but the list of things you can do with main::foo which happen to Just Not Work with the single-quote stuff isn't going to get any smaller either. The point where continuing support for it just isn't worth the hoops we'd have to jump through may be a few years off, or it might be just around the corner. I'm not knowledgeable enough WRT the innards of the Perl parser to say. -- Matthias Urlichs | noris network GmbH | firstname.lastname@example.org | ICQ: 20193661 The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://www.noris.de/~smurf/ -- Absence makes the heart go wander.