a name for the currently executing sub

[David L. Nicol]

James Mastros wrote:

> > At least it's independent of the sub's name. I wish this could be
> > extended to doing recursive calls without having to say the subs own
> > name, again.
> I agree, making the magic variable be the name of the sub is a bad idea.
> 
> Your idea for a name for the currently executing sub is interesting, I
> think.  I'm going to fork the thread.
> 
>         -=- James Mastros

IMO the name of the currently executing sub should be accessed via an
extention to C<caller()>.

        caller{subname} 

For that matter a reference to the lvalue if any could be

        caller{lvalue}

instead of another LNV.