well darned if you aren't right..
The syntax you used does exactly the same thing as a standard function definition, except it does it locally. By all rights, defining a function with a name should be syntactic sugar for assigning an anonymous subroutine to a typeglob. Apparently it isn't, and I missed it.
Bravo.. I stand corrected. And so does the article.
In reply to Re2: MOPT-04 - identification, part 2
by mstone
in thread MOPT-04 - identification, part 2
by mstone
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |