Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2012
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Father Chrysostomos via RT < perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote: > > I don't see why "and 0 or more arguments" is treated differently than > > "and optionally 0 or more arguments". > > If we allow _@, then it becomes more complicated to explain why _$ is > not allowed. > Then what if _@ and _% suggested using _;@ and _;%? Earlier, I tried to use _@, got an error, and abandoned support for lexical $_ by not using prototypes. I never tried _;@. If this code hadn't been public code, I would never have known that I could use _;@. (Thus this bug report.) - EricThread Previous | Thread Next