<answer> i agree with you, but for the sake of read - a - bility I would have defined the vars here (<---) as they are valid for whole package anyway and not just for test1();
use strict;
local $a = 1; <--- local $aa = 2; <---
test1();
sub test1
{
test2();
}sub test2
{
print "a = $a\n";
print "aa = $aa\n";
}
</answer>
Wiggins d'Anconia wrote:> Eternius wrote:
>
>> Joshua A. Gage wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> use my
>> extract from perldoc -f my :
>> A "my" declares the listed variables to be local
>> (lexically) to the enclosing block, file, or
>> "eval".
>>
>
> In most cases you would be right, but in this case it appears that the
> OP understands what 'local' does, as he is using it inside of an
> embedded function. Do I like that, no, but it is a "correct" usage of
> 'local'. Your suggestion of using 'my' changes how the variables must
> be used so is not equivalent without suggesting the interface to 'test2'
> changes...
>
> sub test1 {
> my $aa = 1;
> my $aaa = 2;
> test2($aa, $aaa);
> }
>
> sub test2 {
> my ($bb, $bbb) = @_;
> print "aa = $bb\n";
> print "aaa = $bbb\n";
> }
>
> Is the above better, in the court of readability and encapsulation, yes,
> in the court of elegance, maybe not...
>
> http://danconia.org
>
>
>-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://learn.perl.org/> <http://learn.perl.org/first-response>
