On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 04:26:47PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > $IO::STDERR->print @stuff;
> > print $IO::STDERR @stuff;
>
> Ok, something here is extreme confused. Is not the second form an
> instance of indirect object syntax?
It is not with a bareword at the second place, so is not causing the
action on the distance. (There are some other problems with this,
such as having two frequently used constructs disambiguated by a
hard-to-notice comma.)
As I mentioned in the message you are answering to, there may be
argument both pro and contra having IO syntax with variables stay, why
IO syntax with barewords go.
> > ==================================================================
> > This would cause about 80% of Nathan's RFCs to die screaming, since
> > they nearly all rely on indirect object syntax.
> > ==================================================================
> > This is why I stole my time from other things to write this RFC.
> Please explain what you mean.
I browsed through the database, and saw that a lot of proposals
rely on the syntax which should better go.
Ilya
