Bad timing: now that smart-matching is under scrutiny, I've started to have fun writing Perl like this:

use signatures;
use Path::Class;

file( 'file.txt' ) ~~ sub ($f) {
   say $f->basename;
   say $f->slurp;
};

This style and syntax is reminiscent of Python's with and Ruby's do, and, for this use case in particular, feels a bit more natural to me than right-to-left, functional-style Perl5:

map { say $_->slurp } file( 'file.txt');

I was just wondering if anyone likes them Perl served like tha'.

Thinking of an alternative, but similar syntax, a year or so ago I forked Perl 5.13.x and patched it trying to make it take sub { } as a method call. Things didn't work as I expected as I'm a Perl5 internals noob, it was a really hot Madrid summer afternoon and I had a higher-than-usual dead brain cell count, but the idea was to be able to call closures on objects:

my $f = file( 'ah-ha' );
$f -> sub {
    say $_->basename . ' = ' . $_->slurp;
};

Which probably could work nicely on native types too:

( 1..10 ) -> sub { ... };  # same as sub{ ... }->( 1..10 );
@arr -> sub { ... }; # sub{ ... }->( @arr );
%hash -> sub { ... }; 
"string" -> sub { ... };

The insignificant white-space before and after the arrow makes it even more expressive.

This is not a proposal, Perl6 already that covered: 'ponty-blocks' come to mind, which even drops sub altogether. But it sure feels like something that could make quite easily into Perl5 without causing a lot of grief.