Yes, I looked into caller() and noted that caller()[4] is false if the function is called with the old function notation without ()'s, i.e. no new @_ is created when the function was called. But allowing users to use "&foo" as the function call when desiring "foo($_)" would seem to be a recipe for as much perlish surprise and sorrow as forcing the first argument into a reference.

Sigh.

Does Perl6 have the same limitations in determining argument construction for functions?

- Wyrd