I'd like to point out two things about that referenced post:

1. There were two audiences involved: those with C experience; and those (like the OP) for whom Perl is their first computer language.

   Relying upon knowledge of the specifications of another, more technical language as the explanation of Perl's foibles, is IMO, like telling a child they have synchronous diaphragmatic flutter, when they suffer a bout of a common childhood malady.

2. The phrase may be "well-known"--in very limited circles--but that does not make it logical, nor especially meaningful.

   It reminds me of those archaic legal phrases that still persist despite that few people ever really understood them, and almost no one does now. Eg. The term "larceny" persists in US legal proceedings, despite that it has long been abolished in the country where it originated.

   Just because an illogical grammatical expression has made it into common(*) use--especially, when that is so only for a restricted audience--does not seem reason enough to perpetuate it when there are better, clearer alternatives.

Strange. It seems that it is often the same people who would complain about the use of obscure Perl syntax, that would perpetuate these kinds of in-the-know phrases.

(*)For some definition of the word:common.