Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How usable is this ?
> >
> > I may be missing something, but if every variable mentioned in an anonymous
> > block is assumed to be declared with my, then how do you access or modify
> > the value of any variable outside the block ?
> >
> > Graham.
>
> I knew someone was going to ask this; after I sent it I realized I
> should have included an example.
>
> There's two ways I see it:
>
> 1) do {} block
>
> $val = do {
> $x = 10;
> # ... stuff happens ...
> $y;
> };
>
> In which case $val = $y.
>
> 2) explicit our() scoping
>
> $x = 10;
> our $y = 10;
> {
> $x = 5; # auto-my'ed
> $y += $x; # $y already our'ed above
> }
> print "$y"; # 15
This example scares me. It means that every time I add a `my' or an
`our' line to my program, to add another local variable (sorry,
fluid-let should *really* be called `now'), I have to run along the
entire program and see if I happened to use that variable name
somewhere else, expecting it to be local to that block. Will this
also apply to `use scope 'subs''?
I, for one, will *never* use such a construct. It provides the user
with the dangers of `no strict' combined with the illusion of safety
of `use strict'.
> Remember, you can still override the scopes I propose with an explicit
> my or our. Admittedly, 'blocks' is not nearly as big a benefit as 'subs'
> is, but has some applications, particularly if you're a "likes anonymous
> blocks" kind of person (which some people are).
Only you must make *very* sure that the variable name you're using in
your block is used *nowhere* else. So it's every bit as bad as using
a global variable -- the name must be unique.
--
Ariel Scolnicov |"GCAAGAATTGAACTGTAG" | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Compugen Ltd. |Tel: +972-2-6795059 (Jerusalem) \ We recycle all our Hz
72 Pinhas Rosen St. |Tel: +972-3-7658514 (Main office)`---------------------
Tel-Aviv 69512, ISRAEL |Fax: +972-3-7658555 http://3w.compugen.co.il/~ariels
