remove misleading comment (from M.J.T. Guy)

[p5sagit/p5-mst-13.2.git] / pod / perlsub.pod

diff --git a/pod/perlsub.pod b/pod/perlsub.pod
index ebb9e55..f1b8792 100644 (file)
--- a/pod/perlsub.pod
+++ b/pod/perlsub.pod
@@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ of changing them in place:
     }
 
 Notice how this (unprototyped) function doesn't care whether it was
-passed real scalars or arrays.  Perl sees all arugments as one big,
+passed real scalars or arrays.  Perl sees all arguments as one big,
 long, flat parameter list in C<@_>.  This is one area where
 Perl's simple argument-passing style shines.  The C<upcase()>
 function would work perfectly well without changing the C<upcase()>
@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ when just naming the subroutine, such as when it's used as
 an argument to defined() or undef().  Nor is it optional when you
 want to do an indirect subroutine call with a subroutine name or
 reference using the C<&$subref()> or C<&{$subref}()> constructs,
-although the C<$subref-E<gt>()> notation solves that problem.
+although the C<< $subref->() >> notation solves that problem.
 See L<perlref> for more about all that.
 
 Subroutines may be called recursively.  If a subroutine is called
@@ -891,7 +891,7 @@ like a built-in function.  If you call it like an old-fashioned
 subroutine, then it behaves like an old-fashioned subroutine.  It
 naturally falls out from this rule that prototypes have no influence
 on subroutine references like C<\&foo> or on indirect subroutine
-calls like C<&{$subref}> or C<$subref-E<gt>()>.
+calls like C<&{$subref}> or C<< $subref->() >>.
 
 Method calls are not influenced by prototypes either, because the
 function to be called is indeterminate at compile time, since
@@ -1230,7 +1230,7 @@ functions to Perl code in L<perlxs>.
 
 A subroutine declaration or definition may have a list of attributes
 associated with it.  If such an attribute list is present, it is
-broken up at space or comma boundaries and treated as though a
+broken up at space or colon boundaries and treated as though a
 C<use attributes> had been seen.  See L<attributes> for details
 about what attributes are currently supported.
 Unlike the limitation with the obsolescent C<use attrs>, the
@@ -1244,8 +1244,8 @@ nest properly.
 
 Examples of valid syntax (even though the attributes are unknown):
 
-    sub fnord (&\%) : switch(10,foo(7,3)) , ,  expensive ;
-    sub plugh () : Ugly('\(") , Bad ;
+    sub fnord (&\%) : switch(10,foo(7,3))  :  expensive ;
+    sub plugh () : Ugly('\(") :Bad ;
     sub xyzzy : _5x5 { ... }
 
 Examples of invalid syntax:
@@ -1254,7 +1254,7 @@ Examples of invalid syntax:
     sub snoid : Ugly('(') ;      # ()-string not balanced
     sub xyzzy : 5x5 ;            # "5x5" not a valid identifier
     sub plugh : Y2::north ;      # "Y2::north" not a simple identifier
-    sub snurt : foo + bar ;      # "+" not a comma or space
+    sub snurt : foo + bar ;      # "+" not a colon or space
 
 The attribute list is passed as a list of constant strings to the code
 which associates them with the subroutine.  In particular, the second example
@@ -1270,7 +1270,7 @@ see L<attributes>.
 
 See L<perlref/"Function Templates"> for more about references and closures.
 See L<perlxs> if you'd like to learn about calling C subroutines from Perl.  
-See L<perlembed> if you'd like to learn about calling PErl subroutines from C.  
+See L<perlembed> if you'd like to learn about calling Perl subroutines from C.  
 See L<perlmod> to learn about bundling up your functions in separate files.
 See L<perlmodlib> to learn what library modules come standard on your system.
 See L<perltoot> to learn how to make object method calls.