Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 02:09 AM 8/6/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote: > > uplevel 0, $Perl:Warnings=1; # Hit everyone > > uplevel -1, $Perl:Warnings=0; # Hit my wrapper > Yeah, I can see that. We're going to need a mechanism to hoist things to > outer scope levels internally (for when we return objects from subs) so it > might be worth generalizing things. Huh? I'm not sure if Chaim is proposing the same thing as Tcl's upvar, but that's a hack to Tcl just to get pass-by-ref semantics. I'm not fond of Tcl's uplevel hack either. Perl's already got references, dynamic variables *and* lexical closures; we don't need Tcl's hacks. It isn't clear to me why things like warnings can't be a flag on the current lexical environment. It should be cheap enough to get at a flag on the environment. (We already have a proposal to identify the magical function __ at compile time. We might as well generalize that and identify flags too.) > > >>>>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >DS> I'm not entirely sure that tossing the global nature of these things is a > >DS> bad idea. It is kinda convenient to be able to mess with things (like > >DS> $^W) and have them stay messed-with. Using -w on the command line could have different semantics than turning on $^W. Also, turning on $^W at the toplevel would allow all the nested scopes to inherit it by default. Isn't that what we want? - Ken
