> $_ is the default variable for some operations.
> Some other operations might benefit from similar use of
> $_ to reduce clutter.
This, as a general principle, sounds good.
> An inconsistency between "C<print>" and "<>" bugs me: "C<print;>" means
> "C<print $_;>" so it seems like "<>" should mean "C<$_ = > <>".
> I can't yet think of code that this extension would break.
>
> Actually, some days I wish "print;" meant print nothing. I was tempted
> to title this RFC "Make print and <> consistent."
With regard to <>, this may very likely go away. At any rate, it
isn't consistent with anything else in perl, and making it so would
probably not be worth the pain.
--
John Porter
