That’s exactly the point: there’s a call to pos, but it invokes pos, not your sub pos. That call to pos is ambiguous to the reader.
That argument I can accept (if not agree with), but I didn't get that from the post before the update :-)
Personally I don't find it an ambiguous read. I'm pretty religious about not using () for keywords, and not using prototypes for functions so the fact that it's pos $foo rather than pos( $foo ) is already telling me that it's a keyword not a subroutine call. Combine that with knowing how perl treats clashes between subroutines and keywords and I know that it's not going to cause problems.
However I can see that it's an issue that reasonable people can differ over.
In reply to Re^8: RFC: Integer::Partition::Unrestricted
by adrianh
in thread RFC: Integer::Partition::Unrestricted
by Limbic~Region
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |