Re: [ID 20000123.003] [BUG our() 5.005_63] Lexical scoping problems.

[Pete Jordan <pjordan1@email.mot.com>]

Michael G Schwern wrote:

> as basically, "it scopes just like a my() variable except you can
> refer to it as a fully qualified variable"
> 
> Okay, so color me stupid, but why is our()'s lexical scoping
> capabilities useful?  Just for 'strict vars' reasons?

I can't see any situation where this is actually /necessary/, but as an
advocate of minimal scoping of variables, I have to approve :)

Consider a pair of functions that access the same data:

	sub shove($) {
	  our @stack;
	  push @stack, shift;
	}

	sub prolapse() {
	  our @stack;
	  pop @stack
	}

A contrived example, of course, but until now this could only have been
achieved either with a global (that would be visible throughout the
module from its declaration) or a closure, which is fine unless your
code is running under mod_perl or a similar re-packaging mechanism...

Pete
-- 
use Disclaimer::Standard;
my $phone='+44 1793 564450';    # "THIS IS THE COMPATIBILITY
my $fax='+44 1793 566918';      #  POLICE. RESTORE YOUR ORIGINAL
my $mobile='+44 7973 725120';   #  TOKE.C AND BACK AWAY SLOWLY."

---

Follow-Ups from:

Larry Wall <larry@wall.org>

References to:

Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com>
Gurusamy Sarathy <gsar@ActiveState.com>
Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com>

---

[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Top&Search][Original]

---