The example you give would be an incompatible change.

Please understand, I'm suggesting a case where due to insufficient precision in precedence, the expression " " x 3*2, has no meaning in perl and yields an error.

Syntactically, it is valid, but perl's semantics turn that statement into a semantic "void"... that does nothing for perl or perl authors.

I'm asking to be able to use perl's "voids" (things that don't work by virtue of language semantics) and make them both useful, and, in the process, increase the power of perl as an expressive language. I'm not asking that anything other than obfuscation fodder be given up.

If your preference is for perl to be obfuscated vs. concise and powerful, you are hurting perl's future. Languages are living things -- unless they are dead languages -- which means no one uses them.

I asked for any useful case the current semantics are used for that would be harmed by my changes -- so far no one has come up with 1 example -- just F.U.D. (not to mention accusations of outright lying, 'Eh mate?'). While this is not an overwhelmingly positive outcome, it does seem to be proof that no one can come up with any useful examples in their own code that would be hurt by this change -- likely because using this syntax would currently through an error. Thus my assertion that it was backwards compatible, as it seems no one can come up with any real-life examples where they use or rely on current behavior.

@superdoc -- I have to write extra long to just ***try*** to clearly get my meaning across. I have enough problems with people going off on tangents because of things I didn't imply or say -- though 2ndly with not saying things clearly enough. *sigh*...

*concisely challenged* && still working on it!