From: "Rob Dixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > David Wall wrote: > > Rob Dixon wrote: > > > > > Lexical variables are another matter, as they don't belong to a > > > given package but exist globally as long as there is a reference > > > to them. In my opinion this is a bit of a hack, but access can be > > > limited by creating data that is accessible only by reference, so > > > that code can reach that data only if it has been given a > > > reference to it. > > > > It doesn't seem like a hack to me; it lets you use closures. > > Yes, I knew it would be controversial :) > > But my problem with it is that it has the feel of an afterthought > (which it was - Perl never used to have lexical variables). A 'my' > declaration is too visually similar to an 'our' declaration when it > creates a completely different type of object.
Erm. 'my' is older than 'our' (just like in human history. It took some time before people started to share things ;-). Plus 'our' does not actually create anything. I don't think Perl4 is a valid reason to call anything in Perl5 an afterthought. Unless you call the whole of Perl5 an afterthought. Jenda ===== [EMAIL PROTECTED] === http://Jenda.Krynicky.cz ===== When it comes to wine, women and song, wizards are allowed to get drunk and croon as much as they like. -- Terry Pratchett in Sourcery -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
