Why does reverse in list context operate on () instead of @_ or @ARGV?
It's not unimportant that very little that expects a list distinguishes between an empty list and an unspecified list, and those that do* all default to $_.
* — Only print and say do. reverse in scalar context does too, but that's because it's required to accept a list in case it's called in list context.
In reply to Re: Why does reverse in list context operate on () instead of @_ or @ARGV
by ikegami
in thread Why does reverse in list context operate on () instead of @_ or @ARGV
by Anonymous Monk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |