"You keep using that word ("syntax"). I do not think it means what you think it means."

There's no reason you can't think of use base as a keyword with a space in it.

Note, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your complaint about the mechanics of Perl's OO... although I happen to be quite fond of it.

You keep using that word ("syntax"). I do not think it means what you think it means.

Syntax, as far as I know (and I am no linguist) is the arrangement of "words" into "sentences" as described by or conforming to a grammer. When I say "perl's OO syntax", I mean the various keywords/operators in perl that when combined in a certain way, create OO perl code. What do you think I am meaning when I say "syntax"? Please explain, or correct me if I am wrong in my thinking.

As for use base, yes you can look at it as a keyword with a space in it, but that does not make it a keyword. If you were stuck on a desert island with just an interpreter and no modules, you would have to revert to the ugly @ISA = qw(Bar); form (although I suspsect you would likely just implement your own base pragma).

Please note as well that I make my living writing OO perl code and enjoy I enjoy doing it very much. But having to work with it every day has convinced me that there is room for improvement.

-stvn

Right. My point is that @Foo::ISA = qw( Bar ); is entirely different, syntactically, from use base 'Bar';. If you regard the former as ugly syntax, then the latter should make you happy. I'm still unclear why it doesn't.

If you were stuck on a desert island with just an interpreter and no modules

If I had internet access, I'd reinstall Perl, of course. But if I really did find myself in such a dire situation as you describe, the brokenness of my Perl code which depends on use base would probably be among the lesser of my worries.