This is much like those firmly in the "there's no such thing" camp seem to preconceive that everyone exposed to Perl understands "operand", "operator", "side effect", "right associative", the difference in CS between "assigns" and "returns" and the difference of either from the mathematical "yields" (which are not so different in e.g. Lisp as in Perl), and more.

The "no such thing" camp can easily claim conceptual simplicity when they assume an existing foundation upon which those three concepts that keep getting tossed around are based. Three concepts on top of three or four other concepts one must explain first totals more like six or seven concepts.

Please don't assume that I don't understand those terms based on the fact that I say some people don't. That assumption in these discussions has become quite annoying.

Most of the conceptual baggage in the "rules and exceptions" abstraction come after the rule about the last element being returned. Most of the conceptual baggage for the "no such thing" abstraction that more closely resembles what actually happens inside the interpreter comes beforehand. When someone wants to learn one new thing, teaching them six or seven to take their place is not always the best way to handle that.