On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 12:33:48PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > : Alternatively, this could raise a warning and treat the second my() > : as a no-op. Personally, I'm in favour of an exception. > > I think the exception should certainly be the default, perhaps with > the other behavior pragmatically available.
Yay for sanity! > : The only problem I see with it is that $CALLER::x from &ADD's position > : will refer to the inner, not the outer, $x. > > A similar problem pops up for "eval" as well, though arguably it is the > same problem if the compiler is using the CALLER mechanism to lookup > variables. Right, they are the same problem, as "eval" merely compiled string into a Code and calls it in-place. > : However, seeing that the two > : arguments are in different scopes, I think it is not worth keeping any > promise > : about interaction between $CALLER:: and mid-block declarations anyway. > : > : Does this sound sane? > > We can certainly declare it to be sane. :-) Please do then. :) > Alternately, we could do the fancy thing now and just remember the actual > limits of the variables' visibility. But only if it's fun. :-) The fancy thing (position-counting) is likely to get out of control rapidly under macros, so it's probably not much fun. Erroneousness sounds much saner. Thanks, /Autrijus/
pgpg7x2jW7vAL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
