Re: What's up with %MY?

[Me]

>    > What about if the symbol doesn't exist in the caller's scope
>    > and the caller is not in the process of being compiled? Can
>    > the new symbol be ignored since there obviously isn't any
>    > code in the caller's scope referring to a lexical with that
>    > name?
>
> No. Because some other subroutine called from the caller's scope might
> also access caller().{MY}. In fact, you just invented a new pattern,
in
> which a set of subroutines called within a scope can communicate
invisibly
> but safely through that scope's lexical symbol table.

Foxy variables. Nice.