in reply to Re^5: Order of evaluation/interpolation of references (quirks)
in thread Order of evaluation/interpolation of references

Note that I never said "in the same statement".

No, I did in the post to which you replied, quoting from the post to which I responded.

If your code breaks when the Perl expression $x.$y is noticed to be inefficient because it does "stringify $x (into a copy), stringify $y (into a copy), concat the two (into a third copy)", then I'm pretty sure you've done something stupid in your Perl code.

Hm. Stupid is not illegal. And if it's not illegal, it shouldn't break.

Requiring users to know that "${x()}${X()}" is equivalent to $r1 = X(), $r2 = X(), "$$r1$$r2" is expecting an awful lot.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

The start of some sanity?

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom