in reply to Is this a symbolic reference?
goto &{"foo"}
Clearly has the form of a symref, and should be caught by strict -- but it's not. This was reported by me and mjd to p5p a while ago and it's an intentional exception to stricture. References: my report, mjd's report of nearly the same thing, the eventual explanation. The short version is that strict refs only applies to $%@* things, not &.
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re: Re: Is this a symbolic reference?
by danger (Priest) on Jan 16, 2002 at 23:39 UTC |