Your right it's not consistent. But IMHO consistency will most likely break legacy code.
I think you're saying that because you envision it being consistently broken (always dying) instead of it being consistently fixed (never dying).
There are two ways of fixing it:
Check out this bug that would also be fixed by either of the above two fixes:
for (1..2) { for (1..3) { print $_++; } # 123 234 print "\n"; }
In reply to Re^4: ref to read-only alias ... why? (not consistent)
by ikegami
in thread ref to read-only alias ... why?
by dk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |