Re^2: parser bug handling 'do ($foo)->{bar}' ?

[LanX]

Thanks a lot that makes things a bit clearer. :)

But could you explain how do FILE which does per definition an eval is more a flow control than just eval ?

update

Not to mention that flow control statements don't return values. (maybe with the exception of short circuiting expressions)

[Eily]

My answer starts by "I guess", so you have to take it for what it is. do FILE; is kinda like goto FILE; except it works. Like goto, do has two different meanings depending on the syntax, and the flow-control side means the keywords are not parsed like most other.

Edit: I'm not saying that do is always flow control, but that since it may be, the parser deals with it differently

[LanX]

We all are only guessing. ;)

But asking enough questions might eventually lead to an answer! =)

Never (modulo Alzheimer) heard of the "looks like function rule" , but Deparse mentions it.

Grateful for deeper insight!

[LanX]

> Edit: I'm not saying that do is always flow control, but that since it may be, the parser deals with it differently

From do EXPR

 Uses the value of EXPR as a filename and 
executes the contents of the file as a Perl script. 

   do 'stat.pl';

is largely like 

   eval `cat stat.pl`;

hope you understand now why I have problems to see the diff to eval regarding flow control.

[Eily]

I do understand. I think too that it would be more intuitive for do EXPR; to be parsed as eval EXPR; but I'll sleep better for having an idea of where the difference comes from :).