I can't say I find it appealing to spend a lot of time writing mealy-mouthed, squirrely "well, you know guys, I have this error. And you know, it might just be me, but it seems there's a bug somewhere in Perl." Its much more to the point to state your position and the data supporting it, and then receive whatever rebuttle or higher advisement that others are willing to impart.

You don't need to be mealy-mouthed (What a great phrase...) but you need to tone down the assertion knob a bit. If you are willing to admit your own ignorance (and as a scientist you'd better be =) then try stating these calls in the "Is this really the way it is supposed to work?" form. Honestly, the trouble you stir up is quite worthwhile overall. I just think you are raising hackles by expecting and denouncing. That is bad science. =) Examine and experiment, postulate and test, publish. What you are doing is treating the theory of how perl should behave as the problem. It isn't. Treat perl as a natural phenomenon to be studied. It exists (-e /usr/bin/perl) and can be tested. People on here are reacting badly because you keep saying nature won't abide by the math you've worked out. =)

Anyhoo, don't go away mad, I'm learning from your tinkering and from picking through the ashes in the aftermath!

--
$you = new YOU;
honk() if $you->love(perl)