in reply to Re^2: Perl 5.11.0 now available
in thread Perl 5.11.0 now available

In other words, a code ref on the LHS will be treated the same as any other scalar. It's actually redundant with the previous phrase.
I don't think that it really is. UPDATE: Oops, but I'm wrong, because I misremembered the original sentence. The remainder of the post is now preserved only for posterity.

A commutativity breakage means that there are some circumstances in which the smart match depends on order, not that the smart match is always completely determined by the right-hand member. Indeed, for example, a smatch $scalar ~~ \%hash behaves differently when $scalar happens to be a hashref or arrayref from the way it behaves for coderefs. I think there's nothing about the phrase “commutativity breakage” to indicate this, so it needs to be made explicit in the following sentence (or elsewhere).

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Perl 5.11.0 now available
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 03, 2009 at 21:24 UTC

    I don't think that it really is.

    Why not? How does "treated like any vulgar scalar" differ from "no longer treated specially"? (I said phrase, not sentence)

    A commutativity breakage means that there are some circumstances in which the smart match depends on order, not that the smart match is always completely determined by the right-hand member.

    I know. I never said otherwise.

[reply]
      How does "treated like any vulgar scalar" differ from "no longer treated specially"?
      Sorry, you're right—aside from the fact that the former is funny and the latter isn't, not at all. :-)

      I remembered only “commutativity breakage” and “vulgar scalar”, and completely forgot about the bit in between:

      code references are no longer treated specially when appearing on the left of the ~~ operator
      so that I didn't realise what it was that you were claiming was redundant.

[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Perl News