On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 05:53:40PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote: > And it's pretty easy to use any of > > say ''; > say (); > ''.say; > print "\n"; > > to be clearer about the intent. So my inclination is to outlaw > bare "say" as well, as an aid to catching a common p5thinko that > some folks might otherwise find difficult to debug.
I'm fine with this. How about C< say() > as a function call instead of a listop? Still illegal? If they're "compiler errors", do you expect that we'll catch them as part of the grammar (i.e., in STD.pm), or a later compiler phase? > I suppose a case could be made for just making one or both of those > warnings. STD already has a mechanism for reporting "Possible > difficulties", so maybe that's a good-enough way to handle it. That also works for me -- I'd just like a pointer as to where we're likely to stick the test for this. Thanks! Pm
