Re: RFC 174 (v1) Parse C as C

[Damian Conway]

   > yet even that is not sufficient for some cases, where 
   > 
   >     Y::->X
   > 
   > instead.  Blech.

I find the Y()->X() vs Y::->X() confusion of Y->X() to be simply a bug
in the "precedence" of symbolic refs vs bareword classnames. I think
that people very rarely mean the former.

The current resolution of the ambiguity is even less consistent when you
consider that $hash{Y} is always resolved in favour of $hash{'Y'},
rather than $hash{Y()}

   
   > But given that these *do* differ, it seems reasonable to require
   > different things to have different syntaxes.  I hate not knowing
   > what's going on.
   > 
   > But I will *not* relish typing
   > 
   >     STDERR->print("darn")

Nor I. That's why I'd advocate mandatory braces on indirect objects.
I'd rather:

        print {STDERR} "darn"

any day.


Damian