Heh. Too subtle, I guess. Neither of them "got" it. Well, one of them is probably just trolling their (pretend) lack of understanding.

Surely you mean

Nope. Go look.

Wow, code examples not viewable without javascript -- a sure sign of quality opinions

Nu'nt t'do wiv me. It's pro postfix deref. Just an example someone else posted in support of it.

Indeed I don't believe you don't understand. But, just in case:

$foo->{bar}->{baz}->{quux};
$foo->{bar}->{baz}->{quux}->@*;

${ ${ ${$foo}{bar} }{baz} }{quux};
@{ ${ ${ ${$foo}{bar} }{baz} }{quux} };
[download]

I don't see why ->@* in the left-to-right version doesn't enhance readability just as much as the previous part of the expression, compared to the inside-out version. I must also say that writing the inside-out version was difficult for me, and reading it, even more so. If $foo->{bar} is better then ${ $foo }{bar}, then I don't see why $foo->@* isn't equally better then @{ $foo }. You feel differently, so how about you explain why circumfix is worse in some situations, but becomes better 'at the top level'. "I can tell at a glance" isn't a good explanation because slices exist, e.g.:  for ( @{ $foo->{bar} }{"a", "b", "c", "e"} ) .... You can't even tell "at a glance" you're dealing with a hash!

Your wrong! I'm right! End of. (Its as logical an argument as yours is.)

... Surely you mean ... If you don't mean that... I don't know why postderef upsets you so much. It's just like, you know, the rest of that syntax.

You don't even know whats being discussed? Oh boy

Oh boy, I should've guessed that someone will surely miss the point. Stare at this until you understand:

$foo->{bar}->{baz};
$foo->{bar}->{barz}->@*;

${${$foo}{bar}}{baz};
@{${${$foo}{bar}}{baz}};
[download]

@{${${$foo}{bar}}{baz}};

Is a bullshit way of writing @{ $foo->{bar}{baz} }

Which is a darn sight nicer than this monstrosity $foo->{bar}->{barz}->@*;