text: note BrowserUk <blockquote><i>There would seem to be very little penalty in at least disallowing the package ::::::; syntax the same as package 123 is already disallowed,</i></blockquote> <p>Forgetting the cost for a moment; why disallow it? <p>'::' is a separator. Multiple separators with nothing between them imply null namespaces. We allow the null top-level namespace <c>$::</c> to good effect; albeit that it implies 'main'. Isn't allowing a null namespace at all levels just a logical -- if obscure and unfriendly -- extension of that. . <p <b>their code</b>. Who am I to place restrictions upon what they need or choose to do with it? <p>The greatest danger to Perl's continued popularity, and even existence, is the recent obsession to turn Perl away from its pragmatic origins into some theoretically Utopian perfection. Which is impossible, even if it were desirable. Which it isn't. <P>Expending cycles trying to trap this particular piece of obscurism, when there are so many other possibilities:<code> { package _'_'_'_'_; sub hi{ say 'hello from ', __PACKAGE__ } };; _'_'_'_'_::hi;; hello from _::_::_::_::_ </code> <p>Just seems58