"Mr. Nobody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, January 17, 2003, at 11:00 AM, Simon Cozens wrote:
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
>> >> ...the absence of the commas is what's special. If they were normal
>> >> functions/subroutines/methods/whatever, you would need a comma after
>> >> the first argument
>> >
>> > This is plainly untrue. See the "perlsub" documentation, which talks
>> > about
>> > "creating your own syntax" with the & prototype. You can do all this in
>> > Perl 5, and it saddens me that some of the people redesigning Perl
>> > don't
>> > know what Perl can do.
>>
>> No. I said it was _special_, not _impossible_. You're "creating your
>> own syntax" -- that's exactly my point. C<map>, etc. are using an
>> invocation syntax _slightly_ different from the vast majority of other
>> cases -- one that skips a comma. Yes, it's a special case that exists
>> because of the prototype and the special case caused by '&', which is a
>> special case precisely so that there can be *any* way to emulate the
>> special case C<map> syntax. But whether we like the perl5 C<map>
>> syntax or not, we should at least recognize that it's not regular.
>
> The & syntax is going to be special no matter what. It has the power to turn
> a bare block into a subref:
>
> sub foo ($x) { }
> sub bar (&x) { }
> foo { }; # hash
> bar { }; # sub
Have you been reading the Apocalypses? Both of those are blocks, as
discussed in (I think) Apocalypse 2.
