> >So... what was the rationale against it? > > Best read the archives... I am the wrong person to ask for a statement of > the opposing viewpoint... hey... I'm a lazy guy.. ;-) So - I guess coming from someone who holds the opposing viewpoint, what was it? Ed
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for su... John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for su... Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Peter Scott
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Peter Scott
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Nathan Wiger
- Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN (Re: Closu... Edward Peschko
- Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN (Re: Closu... Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN (Re: Closu... Edward Peschko
- Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN schwern
- Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN Edward Peschko
- Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN John Porter
- Go to perl6-language-strict please (was R... schwern
- Re: Go to perl6-language-strict please (w... Edward Peschko
- Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN schwern