Re: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with self() builtin (not $ME)

Damian Conway wrote:
> 
> I wouldn't be averse to C<self> as the default and C<use invocant> as a sop to
> the C<this>erites and C<$ME>ophiles. But *they* might be!

This is baloney. I agree, we need to *pick something*!!

What should we do, make a "rename" pragma so everyone can be happy?

use rename want => '$NEED', && => 'THISTOO',
    self => '$IAMALIVE', || => 'ORNEXT',
    chomp => 'Ilovemymom', caller => '$CALLERFORTHIS',
    my => 'var', $ => ')', = => 'assign',
    -> => '-member-', ; => '++', die => 'perishPolitely',
    system => 'fork', { => '/*', } => '*/', $! => $boogeyman,
    ( => '[', ) => ']', if => 'checktosee';

Then we can write really flexible code that looks just like my
"religion" wants it to!

   checktosee [ $NEED eq 'HASH' ] /*
      var )name assign )DEFAULT ORNEXT
          $IAMALIVE-member-getName++
      perishPolietly "Couldn't get )name" unless )name++
      ilovemymom )name++
      var )user assign )name ORNEXT "user"++
      fork "ls -l" THISTOO perishPolitely "ls failed: $boogeyman"++
   */


This is, obviously, complete insanity. And a load of shit.

We can pick self(). Or this(). Or me(). Or context(). Or invocant().

Or $ME. Or $SELF. Or $THIS. Or $CONTEXT. Or $INVOCANT.

But we have to f**king pick *something*!!! Someone's going to be unhappy
but:

   1. They'll get over it.

   2. It's for the greater good.

Anyone who counters and says "but it's crucial that the invocant *must*
be named X" is inflexible and full of shit.

The *only* decent point I've heard so far is that some people might want
$self still as $_[0]. We should accomodate this. 

-Nate