On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 06:12:15PM -0400, Vadim Belman wrote: : Though technically this aspect was clear to me, but to settle things down in my mind completely: for now ordinary (not 'our') sub belongs not to the package object but to the block which belongs to that package. Is it correct way to describe things?
Mostly right. I would not say that the block "belongs" to a package. A block belongs to a larger block, which belongs to a larger block, which (eventually) belongs to a file, which functions as yet another block. (And, in fact, in Perl 6 the file itself belongs to its SETTING, which is a fake lexical scope containing the whole file.) Now, certainly, any given line of code happens to know which package is its current default package, so in that sense a block may be associated with one or more packages. But there is no need for the block to take its identity from its associated packages, since it can ignore them entirely. What it can't ignore is its textual position. A block's location is its real identity, where it "belongs". Larry
