Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> >So what's left?
> >
> > print STDERR "Foo";
> >
> >We have a proposal to turn STDERR into $STDERR, and it looks likely it'll go
> >through.
>
> It is? I certainly hope not. It makes as much sense to
> do that as to force a dollar sign on subroutines.
Your point is assuming that STDERR retains its weirdness, and does not
become a simple scalar object so that these two:
print $STDERR @data;
$STDERR->print(@data);
Are 100% the same. Making STDERR into $STDERR is all hinged on fast
vtable stuff in core, which looks quite likely based on things Dan says,
but not set in stone.
> >If use strict 'subs' is in effect you're guaranteed these are subroutine
> >calls, or compile-time errors. If it isn't you get a nice little warning.
> >Perhaps the stringification should be removed entirely, and the syntax
> >always be a subroutine call.
>
> Eek, that's what I want to kill. I want you to HAVE to
> write that as
>
> $time = time();
>
> with the parens. The lack of parens is the root of MANY
> an evil in perl.
Check out use strict 'words' in RFC 278.
-Nate
