On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 05:19:16PM -0500, David Nicol wrote:
> On 4/20/05, Dave Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Adding a warning would warn on the following:
> >
> > sub log { print LOG @_ }
> > ...
> > open LOG, '>>log';
>
> No it wouldn't. C<<print>> takes C<<LOG>> as it's first argument,
> not rearranging into C<<LOG->print(@_)>>. (Or I am being naive again.)
Well, syntactically print LOG @_ is still inderect object synatx, but
because print is a built-in, the tokeniser handl;es it slightly
differently. How about this example then:
sub log { myprint LOG @_ }
...
open LOG, '>>log';
> The current version of the feature I am requesting (and would be willing to
> write the patch myself, if assured that it will get accepted) is,
Well personally I wouldn't accept it; I don't speak for the pumpkings
though.
> when NEWTOKEN1 NEWTOKEN2 ... is parsed into NEWTOKEN2->NEWTOKEN1(...), a
> check will be made to verify that NEWTOKEN2 appears as an existing
> namespace, failure resulting in a syntax-bareword warning, which will be
> handled appropriately within the existing warnings/stricture framework.
--
Now is the discount of our winter tent
-- sign seen outside camping shop
