From gyepi@praxis-sw.com

This is a bug report for perl from gyepi@​praxis-sw.com,
generated with the help of perlbug 1.34 running under perl v5.8.3.

[Please enter your report here]

In the following paragraph, found in perlop, the second instance of
"-bareword" should read "+bareword"

  Unary "-" performs arithmetic negation if the operand is numeric. If
  the operand is an identifier, a string consisting of a minus sign con-
  catenated with the identifier is returned. Otherwise, if the string
  starts with a plus or minus, a string starting with the opposite sign
  is returned. One effect of these rules is that "-bareword" is equiva-
  lent to "-bareword".

[vPlease do not change anything below this line]

Flags​:
  category=docs
  severity=low

Site configuration information for perl v5.8.3​:

Irrelevant stuff elided.

From @tamias

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 06​:12​:12PM -0000, gyepi @​ praxis-sw. com wrote​:

In the following paragraph, found in perlop, the second instance of
"-bareword" should read "+bareword"

   Unary "\-" performs arithmetic negation if the operand is numeric\.  If
   the operand is an identifier\, a string consisting of a minus sign con\-
   catenated with the identifier is returned\.  Otherwise\, if the string
   starts with a plus or minus\, a string starting with the opposite sign
   is returned\.  One effect of these rules is that "\-bareword" is equiva\-
   lent to "\-bareword"\.

No, it's correct as is. -bareword is not equivalent to +bareword. The
problem is the rendering. Here's the unrendered POD​:

One effect of these rules is that C<-bareword> is equivalent
to C<"-bareword">.

Unfortunately, the addition of quotes obscures the meaning of the sentence.

Ronald

The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'

From @rgs

Ronald J Kimball wrote​:

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 06​:12​:12PM -0000, gyepi @​ praxis-sw. com wrote​:

In the following paragraph, found in perlop, the second instance of
"-bareword" should read "+bareword"

   Unary "\-" performs arithmetic negation if the operand is numeric\.  If
   the operand is an identifier\, a string consisting of a minus sign con\-
   catenated with the identifier is returned\.  Otherwise\, if the string
   starts with a plus or minus\, a string starting with the opposite sign
   is returned\.  One effect of these rules is that "\-bareword" is equiva\-
   lent to "\-bareword"\.

No, it's correct as is. -bareword is not equivalent to +bareword. The
problem is the rendering. Here's the unrendered POD​:

One effect of these rules is that C<-bareword> is equivalent
to C<"-bareword">.

Unfortunately, the addition of quotes obscures the meaning of the sentence.

I just removed the C<>.

@rgs - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved'

From @brentdax

via RT gyepi @​ praxis-sw. com <perlbug-followup@​perl.org> wrote​:

In the following paragraph, found in perlop, the second instance of
"-bareword" should read "+bareword"

   Unary "\-" performs arithmetic negation if the operand is numeric\.  If
   the operand is an identifier\, a string consisting of a minus sign con\-
   catenated with the identifier is returned\.  Otherwise\, if the string
   starts with a plus or minus\, a string starting with the opposite sign
   is returned\.  One effect of these rules is that "\-bareword" is equiva\-
   lent to "\-bareword"\.

This is a quirk of the way POD is rendered for viewing on a console.
The source for the part in question looks something like this​:

  One effect of these rules is that C<-bareword> is equivalent to
C<"-bareword">.

(Unless the copy on perldoc.com has been altered.)

--
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <brent@​brentdax.com>
Perl and Parrot hacker

There is no cabal.
[I currently have a couple Gmail invites--contact me if you're interested.]

From @davidnicol

C<> becomes quotes, which is correct, and the bits in question are code,
so why not use the C<q> operator rather than quote marks, to differentiate
the two cases, and both versions get wrapped in no-longer-confusing quote marks.

One effect of these rules is that C<-bareword> is equivalent
to C<q/-bareword/>.

but aren't barewords deprecated?

No, it's correct as is. -bareword is not equivalent to +bareword. The
problem is the rendering. Here's the unrendered POD​:

One effect of these rules is that C<-bareword> is equivalent
to C<"-bareword">.

Unfortunately, the addition of quotes obscures the meaning of the sentence.

I just removed the C<>.

--
David L Nicol
"Valuable ideas can withstand scrutiny" -- authors of /XP Explained/