Steve Peters via RT wrote: >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Jun 21 03:08:05 2001]: >> >> >>----------------------------------------------------------------- >>[Please enter your report here] >> >>$ perl -we 'open(X, "/etc/motd");<X>' >> >>$ perl -Mstrict -e 'open(X, "/etc/motd");<X>' >> >>$ perl -we 'open(X, "/etc/motd");readline(X)' >>Name "main::X" used only once: possible typo at -e line 1. >> >>$ perl -Mstrict -e 'open(X, "/etc/motd");readline(X)' >>Bareword "X" not allowed while "strict subs" in use at -e line 1. >>Execution of -e aborted due to compilation errors. >> > > > The orignal intent of this ticket was that the <> operator takes just X > (so <X>) while readline must be passed a typeglob (so you get > readline(*X)). Is this something that we would want to change. To me, > changing it would seem to break things. Anyone else have an opinion?
I think this was discussed and played around with back when, and yes, as far as I can remember, it would have broken things. I think this ticket can be closed. P.S. Steve, you seem to be cleaning up the treacherous jungle known as the perlbug queues quite nicely. Thanks! -- Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ "There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. It is 'dead'." -- Jack Cohen
