So barewords were introduced with the assumption subroutine calls would always have amperands -- and as hindsight works so well, we can all see what a bad assumption that was.
(besides, you said 'Presuming no "use strict" (or the days of Perl3)')
... and I'm a newbie -- I learned from Matt's Script Archive the llama book in um...1994? 1995? using Perl 4. I've never used Perl 3.
In reply to Re^3: Why use strict is good, and barewords are bad
by jhourcle
in thread Why use strict is good, and barewords are bad
by merlyn
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |