Re^2: new keyword "size" to avoid scalar trap ? ( scalar @array != scalar(LIST) )

[LanX]

> I don't see a need for it.

Honestly, did you immediately spot the problem in BUK's code?

Re: Idiom to return 0 or random number of array elements

UPDATE:

Do you really prefer explaining goatse "op"  =()= and turtle "op" @{[ ]} to newbes who simply need to count the elements a function returns?

UPDATE:

> I'd rather see them overload length to accept a hash, array or reference to a hash or array.

Then it's quite impossible to tell what length ($str) is supposed to return. 1 for the list-size or the char-size of $str?