Michele Dondi writes: > This is yet another proposal that is probably a few years late. I've had > some (admittedly limited) experience with S-Lang in the past: the language > has currently a syntax that resembles much that of C but was originally > designed to be strongly stack-based and still is behind the scenes, a > consequence of which is that it supports an (undocumented, AFAIK!) > alternative RPN syntax. > > Now Perl is not like that, although internally Perl5's bytecode is > stack-based, whereas it's known that Perl6's one will be register-based. > > However I wonder if an implicit stack could be provided for return()s into > void context. It is well known that currently split() in void context has > the bad habit of splitting into @_, which is the reason why doing that is > deprecated. But it's somewhat anomalous amongst perl's functions I'd say. > > To be fair I've *never* felt the need to have a stack like that in Perl, > but who knows? It may come handy in some cases...
To be honest, I have no idea what you're asking for. Might you explain in a little more detail? Luke
