I think B::Deparse gets it wrong -- as it sometimes does -- when you add -p:

This is confirmed by the more low-level output of B::Concise:

Look at the way Deparse uses whitespace, its subtle

<Reveal this spoiler or all in this thread>

I don't think so.

did you recompile the output?

I can't test ATM, but most likely it depends if a function is known at compile time. Contrary to AnoMonk I doubt space matters.

Anyway IMHO the indirect object syntax should be deprecated....

Cheers Rolf

(addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

I can't test ATM

You gotta stop saying that :)

Contrary to AnoMonk I doubt space matters.

Sure it does, it matters how Deparse places the space, because it matters to perl

$ perl -w
print(two (('two' == 'five') ? 'true' : 'false'));
Unquoted string "two" may clash with future reserved word at - line 1.
^Z
Name "main::two" used only once: possible typo at - line 1.
Argument "five" isn't numeric in numeric eq (==) at - line 1.
Argument "two" isn't numeric in numeric eq (==) at - line 1.
print() on unopened filehandle two at - line 1.
[download]

That is exactly as deparsed with -p, behaves exactly like the original