RE: What's up with %MY?

[Damian Conway]

Dan wrote:

   > At 12:50 PM 9/4/2001 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
   > >
   > >So deleting it 
   > >would remove it from the scratchpad of &incr. But I would guess that 
   > >future calls to &incr would have to autovify $x in the scratchpad and 
   > >start incrementing it from 0. I.e., ignoring a package $x if it exists. I 
   > >could see people prefering it either way...
   > 
   > Folks might also want that to then refer to the $x in the enclosing scope. 
   > Don't think that's going to happen, though. (Lots and lots of runtime 
   > overhead in that case)

I agree (both that people might want that, and that it's probably not
going to happen ;-)


   > I can see allowing read/write/change/iterate access (possibly
   > enforcing types when writing) but not delete. That opens up a
   > number of cans of worms I'd rather stay closed for now.

Why not C<delete>? It merely requires that the internals equivalent of:

        sub LEXICAL::SCALAR::FETCH ($varname) {
                $scalar_ref = caller().{MY}{$varname};
                return $$scalar_ref;
        }

        sub LEXICAL::SCALAR::STORE ($varname, $newval) {
                $scalar_ref = caller().{MY}{$varname};
                $$scalar_ref = $newval;
        }

becomes:

        sub LEXICAL::SCALAR::FETCH ($varname) {
                $scalar_ref = caller().{MY}{$varname}
                        or throw "lexical $varname no longer in scope";
                return $$scalar_ref;
        }

        sub LEXICAL::SCALAR::STORE ($varname, $newval) {
                $scalar_ref = caller().{MY}{$varname}
                        or throw "lexical $varname no longer in scope";
                $$scalar_ref = $newval;
        }

I don't understand why you think that's particularly wormy?

Damian