I don't think that there is any way that you could claim those to be examples of "Perl's relational operators"?

No, I don't. But if an overloaded relational operator acted as a relational operator (i.e. returned a true or a false value), wouldn't that be a relational operator?

then I don't think that you can lay the blame for that at Perl's door.

I never blamed Perl. I blamed the clever code that ignored the documentation.

Don't restrict "testing" to "creating a test". When I don't understand something I read in a piece of code, I run a few tests until I do.

The same answer applies. Readability and thus the value of the code is severely hindered if you need to run tests to understand something basic.

And what test will tell me that "it always has returned 1", the answer I'm expected to reach according to this thread?

Then perhaps you could explain what the point of the statement was?

I tend to forgot to follow through to the conclusion of my point in writing,. See replies to see where I was leading.