I will frankly agree with you, BrowserUK.   (Upvoted.)

The big problem that I have with most of these “fee-churs” is that they add a new “M” to “DWIM,” apparently just to save a few keystrokes.   Most of the time, a programming language doesn’t really need another way to say the same thing.   All that this really does, is to introduce yet-another element of functional ambiguity into the syntax ... which is especially a problem when the “correct” interpretation depends on (even for the moment ...) some obscure use clause.

Given that programmers have to maintain source-code libraries consisting of maybe hundreds of thousands of lines, it really isn’t a good thing for there to be more-than-one way to say one-thing.   There probably will be no at-runtime difference, as the compiler might well translate both constructs into the same underlying perlguts.   But, there is a pragmatic difference, caused both by the ambiguity and by the co-existence of “old” and “new,” within the same voluminous code-base.   Only a very few, like “immediate-OR,” are both clean-enough and isolated-enough to be (IMHO) a genuine, relatively risk-averse, win.

Language features, however well-intentioned they may be, must be judged in a very long view.   We do every day deal with vast code-bases that were constructed over the period of many years, even as the [Perl...] language itself evolved, as it were, “beneath their feet.”   That source-code is worth many millions of currency-units.   [Perl], itself, is not.