No you didn't ... I did !x3

Seriously?

My point is that my question still stands as you replied with something unrelated.

What's your point? (x2)

To which version of your updates am I supposed to answer?

Since each was a superset of the previous, does it matter? Reply to whichever part you want. =

Honestly you have the tendance to answer without really reading the question, maybe due to your high output of posts?

My first reply was a detailed repetition of the OP....

But I have the strong impression you just want to repeat your usual "Perl can't be compiled to C" protocol.

> Since each was a superset of the previous, does it matter?

No it wasn't, you were talking about implicit numification of scalars...

You usually demand to flag significant updates, so do I. Please!

whatever ....

I'm not in the mode for flaming and I already have promising results hacking B::Deparse

Thanks!

Cheers Rolf

My first reply was a detailed repetition of the OP....

No, you omitted the part I specifically asked about.

Honestly you have the tendance to answer without really reading the question

Says the person who still hasn't answered my question. (x3)

But I have the strong impression you just want to repeat your usual "Perl can't be compiled to C" protocol.

I don't recall ever saying that*. In fact, the last time the subject came up, I said Perl is compiled to a list of C functions calls. Maybe you're thinking of someone else.

In any case, I definitely didn't say it here.

You usually demand to flag significant updates

You're thinking of someone else.

* — Not saying I didn't. It's obviously possible — Turing Completeness and such — but it's a question of costs and practicality, and that varies by case. Nothing "usual" about it.

Update: Added "*"