edited: "because IT only..."

I have a hard time believing it is a NOP. I actually first saw it right at the top of the synopsis section of the fields doc:

[snip]

package Foo;
use fields qw(foo bar _Foo_private);
sub new {
    my Foo $self = shift;

[snip]
[download]

As for the attributes example, the attributes doc claims the example is syntactically valid. I realize it is not supposed to "do" anything (other than, I would hope, compile); I'm just trying to grok attributes and fields and ran into these stumbling blocks.

Brad

Does this convince you?

C:\>perl -MO=Concise,-ascii -e"package Foo;my $bar = 23;"
6  <@> leave[1 ref] vKP/REFC ->(end)
1     <0> enter ->2
2     <;> nextstate(Foo 1 -e:1) v ->3
5     <2> sassign vKS/2 ->6
3        <$> const[IV 23] s ->4
4        <0> padsv[$bar:1,2] sRM*/LVINTRO ->5
-e syntax OK

C:\>perl -MO=Concise,-ascii -e"package Foo;my Foo $bar = 23;"
6  <@> leave[1 ref] vKP/REFC ->(end)
1     <0> enter ->2
2     <;> nextstate(Foo 1 -e:1) v ->3
5     <2> sassign vKS/2 ->6
3        <$> const[IV 23] s ->4
4        <0> padsv[$bar:1,2] sRM*/LVINTRO ->5
-e syntax OK
[download]

Looks pretty convincing to me (there is no difference between the op trees, thus it is a null op).

MJD says "you can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, retardo!"

I run a Win32 PPM repository for perl 5.6.x and 5.8.x -- I take requests (README).

** The third rule of perl club is a statement of fact: pod is sexy.

I have a hard time believing it is a NOP

It is syntactically valid because it compiles. QED. It apparently does nothing accoridng to Deparse. QED also is it not? This is also valid syntax, left over from previous perls.....

C:\>perl -MO=Deparse -e"package Foo; $Foo'bar=42"
package Foo;
$bar = 42;
-e syntax OK
C:\>
[download]

cheers

tachyon