So basically you're saying that if don't put that disambiguator there, perl thinks it's the EXPR form of map() rather than the BLOCK form, notwithstandig the fact that there's no comma after the block itself.
That can't be. Indeed, Perl does make the decision before it is even close to worrying about the comma, but the comma must be there for an expression and must not be there for a block.
So if you and Perl disagree on the expression vs. block interpretation, then the presense or lack of the comma will cause Perl to tell you quite loudly that it didn't agree with you (unless you get the comma's existence wrong compared to your desire for the expression vs. block form).
So I've been assuming that one side or the other of this discussion hasn't actually tested the exact code under discussion. No, I haven't tested any of it.
- tye
In reply to Re^3: map()'s BLOCK and deviations from othogonality... (comma)
by tye
in thread map()'s BLOCK and deviations from othogonality...
by blazar
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |