Dear lestrrat
AFAIK, the only difference between tfc22's code and yours is the way you handle errors. In essense, both codes do the same thing. I really see no point about where you die() for errors, since you die() for errors somewhere in your code.
What I see is Just Another Way To Do It.
Maybe some benchmarking could reveal something more interesting.

On the other hand, as you mentioned before, the guys who coded the initial snippet use to code C, and the idiom is much more readable to C programmers than it is for smalltalk-based perl programmers (like me). Maybe this is the advantage you're looking for: C programmers that see this kind of construction will more likely recognise it (and feel at home) than programmers with other backgrounds.

My two pence.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
monsieur_champs