1. use strict should prevent people from doing that since it's no different than variables. It could be a bug. But it's documented. This is to make goto &$AUTOLOAD not break.
2. Are you sure that the solution to your problem, which dances around what is "allowed" and what isn't in terms of strictness is correct in the maintainable sense?
3. If you're undermining use strict, but know how what you're doing is "bad" and furthermore, know what you're doing, what does it really matter? You could keep a hash of subreferences, and in practice you'll be doing the same thing (the symbol table is a hash), except in a syntatically more recognizable way. use strict is meant to be a tool that helps you not shoot yourself in the foot. If you find it limiting, or find yourself needing to see where it is limiting to get some work done, I don't think it's being used correctly.
In reply to Re: strict and symbolic subroutine refs
by nothingmuch
in thread strict and symbolic subroutine refs
by tinita
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |