[MikeL asks: why no post-X chaining?]

Same thing it would be if I did this:

    for (@array2) {
        for (@array1) {
            blah($_);
        }
    }

Not to reactivate this whole thing, but that argument doesn't hold a
lot of water.  I<unless> is not really needed--you can get the same
thing by saying C<if (not $foo)>.  Likewise, C<and> and C<or> are not
needed--you can get the same effect with && and || and a bunch of
parens.  Come to think of it, you don't really B<need> to be able to
return multiple values, right?  You could always just pass a reference
to an array in as an extra parameter, then stuff that array before
returning....

Basically, why draw the line here?

Seems fine.  Exit the current function unless expr evaluates to false
once for each element of @array...presumably, you are testing
something in @array, but not necessarily.  

Yep, that IS a good enough reason.  Like Paul, though, I _would_ like
to understand Larry's thinking.  This call seems arbitrary, which is
unusual for Larry.  I'd even be happy with "My experience tells me
that this will cause a lot of problems down the road, but I can't put
my finger on why."

--Dks