Why not make your straw man ${ ${ $foo->{bar} }{baz} } = 4? A. Because that would be even more stupid.
:-) OK, let's try: 
${ $foo->{bar}{baz} } = 4:

[download]
Still looks stupid?

What about: 

@{ $foo->{bar}{baz} }[0, 5] = (3, 4);

[download]
I guess, also too stupid?

Let's try some more:

@{ $foo->{bar}{baz} }{ 'John', 'Jane', 'Bill' } = ('Smith') x 3;

[download]
Stupid?

If not, then why 

${ $foo->{bar} }{baz} = 4;

[download]
becomes stupid? Maybe because you can actually avoid circumfix dereferencing here?

Why not just $foo->{bar}{baz} = 4; the way 90% of people write it?
That's what I'm asking. Why 90% of people try to avoid circumfix when they can?

In reply to Re^16: Experimental features: autoderef vs postfix deref by Anonymous Monk
in thread Experimental features: autoderef vs postfix deref by stevieb

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.