On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:24:45AM -0700, Jan Dubois wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Aaron Crane wrote: > > My suspicion is that Perl shouldn't apply any form of call-frame > > merging without seeing an explicit indication (whether a pragma, or > > use feature feature, or simply an additional/alternative return > > builtin) that the programmer is happy for call frames to disappear > > from what caller() sees. > > Don't we have that alternative return builtin already with: > > @_ = (...); > goto &foo; > > Or are you just talking about syntactic sugar to make this more > pleasant to read? https://metacpan.org/module/Sub::Call::Tail -- Paul "LeoNerd" Evans leonerd@leonerd.org.uk ICQ# 4135350 | Registered Linux# 179460 http://www.leonerd.org.uk/Thread Previous | Thread Next