"Brust, Corwin" wrote:
>
> > From: Tony Olekshy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > That's well and good, but the source code syntax says it's a block,
> > not a sub. Am I supposed to spend the rest of my life asking myself,
> > "Wait, is this one of Corwin's special blocks?" ;-)
> >
> > I think we should leave @_ alone. @@ is free and it's the perfect
> > dual of $@. What more could we ask for?
>
> Ok, uncle.
Thanks.
> I think C<throw> was already going to operate on $@ by default, what
> about C<warn>?
Throw can't take no arguments because its a constructor, not a function.
warn, no arguments? If $@ it should do $@." at line blah file blah", and
if !$@ it should do "warning at line blah file blah.".
Yours, &c, Tony Olekshy
