[doc] pod/perlvar.pod: should the <<>> operator be mentioned more often?

[vaitkus]

Where
pod/perlvar.pod

Description
Multiple variables interact with the double diamond operator (<<>>) in the same way they interact with the single diamond operator (<>), e.g. $ARGV, ARGV, $., ${^OPEN}. However, only the ${^OPEN} description explicitly mentions <<>> ("or the related <> and <<>> operators"). I was wondering if it would be worthwhile to modify the other mentions in a similar way as well, e.g. by introducing phrasing like "<>/<<>> operators" instead of "<> operator". On the one hand it is more verbose, on the other, newcomers may not be aware of the <<>> operator at all as the majority of the coding examples in the wild probably use <>.

[khwilliamson]

I remember looking for diamond in perltoc and not finding it. So yes, this is a problem

[Grinnz]

It is only mentioned in prose in https://perldoc.perl.org/perlop#I/O-Operators, incidentally the <> operator is not much easier to find documentation for, and is just more well-known in general. I'm not sure the best way forward on this but perlop is difficult to search for specific operators by name in general.

[Grinnz]

But as far as mentioning it in perlvar as the OP states, certainly more variable descriptions could use it in examples or descriptions.

[Grinnz]

Opened #23224 for the tangentially related issue of finding operators by name.

[vaitkus]

@khwilliamson I think that PR #23250 addresses issue #23224 more than it address this one. While mentioning operator by name greatly improves the documentation, my original inquiry was more about the double diamond operator often being omitted in variable descriptions where it might make sense to mention it alongside the regular diamond operator, e.g. see the $ARGV description:

    Contains the name of the current file when reading from <>.