Different higher-order func notation? (was Re: RFC 23 (v1) Higher order functions)

[Nathan Wiger]

> The error was not here but in:
> 
>    __ < 2 + __ * atan($pi/__) or die __
> 
> That should of course have been:
> 
>    __ < 2 + __ * atan2($pi, __) or die __

Can I make one observation? Maybe I'm the only one.

I find the __ *really* hard to follow. I've been trying to keep up with
this discussion, but it's really chewing me up.

Since this is really something different (not a scalar, hash, etc), has
any consideration been given to other variable names:

   ^_
   &_       # kinda like this - higher-order "&func"
   !_

Same length, but they stand out more (ala $_, @_, etc) than just __. I
think the concept's great, just that the notation is really hard to
read, and doesn't necessarily scream "function" to me (especially since
_ is from stat already).

-Nate