Abhijit Mahabal asked:

>  Er, is it true that methods don't topicalize the invocant nowadays?

If it's not true, it darn well ought to be!


>  I had thought that they do and one needs the ./ to still talk about the 
>  invocant if some inner loop stole the $_, and until such stealing occurs 
>  .foo() and ./foo() are the same...

I think that would be a really bad idea. It's a gilt-edged invitation for 
errors to creep in as calls to .meth() silently change semantics when code is 
refactored.

The whole point of ./ is to have one unambiguous way of calling methods on an 
implicit invocant. I'm arguing that that one umambiguous way should be the 
*only* way. Having an unambiguous way *and* an ambiguous way seems like poor 
design.

Damian