function_name indirect_object argument... rather then function_name argument operator... No, the message would be different if that was the case
$ perl -le" ro sham bo "
Can't locate object method "ro" via package "sham" (perhaps you forgot
+ to load "sham"?) at -e line 1.
Its just never going to work the way the OP thinks it should (or I think he thinks it should)
An anonymous subroutine is always defined
So you can see there is no indirect object notation
Its anonymous sub, match operator, and a seven, and these three scalars/expressions need to be separated by operators, like comma, plus minus ...
Now you could argue it should just work, how come it recognizes three scalar expressions instead of recognizing one of them as an operator.... but its moot, the perlops || and // bind tight, there really is no avoiding the parenthesis :)
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
So you can see there is no indirect object notation
Well, syntactically print STDOUT "whatever", new Foo "whatever" and grep {;} "whatever" look pretty similar to me. I know only one name for it - "indirect object slot" - it's used for different purposes, yeah, but Perl is full of this kind of overloaded grammar so... Anyway, as far as I can tell foo {;} // 7 is parsed like grep {;} m// 7.
$ perl -MO=Deparse -e 'sub foo(&) {;} foo {;} //'
Too many arguments for main::foo at -e line 1, at EOF
-e had compilation errors.
sub foo (&) {
}
&foo(sub {
}
, //);
$ perl -MO=Deparse -e 'sub foo(&) {;} foo {;} 1, 2, 3'
Too many arguments for main::foo at -e line 1, at EOF
-e had compilation errors.
sub foo (&) {
}
&foo(sub {
}
, 1, 2, 3);
$ perl -MO=Deparse -e 'sub foo(&) {;} foo {;} 1 2'
Number found where operator expected at -e line 1, near "1 2"
(Missing operator before 2?)
Too many arguments for main::foo at -e line 1, near "1 2"
syntax error at -e line 1, near "1 2"
-e had compilation errors.
sub foo (&) {
}
Its anonymous sub, match operator, and a seven, and these three scalars/expressions need to be separated by operators, like comma, plus minus ...
Well, no comma is necessary between the "indirect object slot" (or whatever it's called) and the next argument. Only 7 needs a preceding comma. | [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
Well, no comma is necessary between the "indirect object slot" (or whatever it's called) and the next argument. Only 7 needs a preceding comma. Good point, only one comma is required for this well formed nonsense :) its still nonsense though
| [reply] |