> > > > Can you give me an example of the former? > > I can't think of any off the top of my head. > > Scalar value @foo[$bar] better written as $foo[$bar], for one. > > If part of Perl's breeding is autovivication and interpretation of undef as > 0 or "" in the appropriate context, why should Perl bitch at me if I use it > as such? Why should I have to ask permission to do so? Well, for one, your example is ill-considered. You are going to get autovivification saying: @foo[$bar] = 1; just as much as you are going to get autovivification for: $foo[$bar] = 1; Hence I'd say that @foo[$bar] has NO INTRINSIC VALUE whatsoever. Second, with the keyword empty (if it comes to pass) the reasons for interpretation of undef as 0 and "" go away. Right now, things are a PITA to get empty values: my ($a, $b, $c, $d, $e) = ('') x 5; With empty: my ($a, $b, $c, $d, $e) = empty; > I would rather say, and I think it would be more perlish to say, "I'm not > feeling particularly perly today, can you check for anything clever, cause > if there is, chances are it's a mistake." Or how about "I'm feeling particularly lazy today, I think I'll sleep in. Lets worry about any mistakes I might make another day." For i maintain that any 'cleverness' that you might have that causes warnings in perl6 will *probably* be a mistake. Ed