Plenty of good information, but no specific answer to specific question.

but no specific answer to specific question.

Which specific question?

There are 7 question marks in the OP and another couple of questions without one.

Some of those questions -- a list of named unary operators -- have been answered.

Others are so open ended, vague and unformed, it would be hard to answer without reproducing half of perldoc. Eg:

• Is this about any sub with non-($) prototype and args without parens?

  Is what about ...

• What about optional args?

  What "what" about optional args?

• What about built ins?

  What "what" about them?

As someone who has something of a history of asking rather vague questions, I know it is often hard to explain what the exact information you're looking for is, and easy to forget that a question formed in the context of your thought processes -- possibly going back days or weeks -- seems very clear to you; but not so clear to those who don't have that context.

So if you have specific questions; you'll need to convey their specificity with enough context that people can attempt answer specifically, or point you at specific part of the docs; rather then broad areas.

---

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

I'm with torvalds on this Agile (and TDD) debunked I told'em LLVM was the way to go. But did they listen!

Yes, I guess you are right.

Anyway, my search and experiments gives me answers:

• Yes, if in compile-time perl knows that sub has ($) prototype - it's being treated as a named unary operator.
• Seems there is no any list of named unary built-ins, except I found in the book
• Optional arguments after first one makes sub a list operator.

Generally it what i wanted