On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 08:16:19PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 04:33:19PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote: > : I'm not making an argument against %_, just noting that *_ is used > : opportunisticly and you will break a few programs. > > Not necessarily. If Perl 6 were to use %_ as parameter name, it > would be lexically scoped, and hide any package %_ only in that scope.
Sorry, p5p-cross talk, I was referring only to Perl 5. -- Any sufficiently encapsulated hack is no longer a hack.
