On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 05:08:58PM -0400, Bob Rogers wrote:
: I don't see that this is any harder; unless I'm misunderstanding you,
: this is just another normal closure usage case. The OUTER scope is
: always the one defined by outersub, no matter how many calls back in the
: dynamic chain it mig
From: "John M. Dlugosz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 11 Apr 2008 20:12:41 -
. . .
What happens? The OUTER scope no longer exists at CALL 3. Does a
symbolic reference to OUTER require that the entire scope be
retained, just in case? If "OUTER" itself (or OUTER::OUTER::...) is
OUTER::<$varname> (S06, "Out-of-scope names")
$OUTER::varname (S02, "Names")
specifies the $varname declared in the lexical scope surrounding the current
lexical scope (i.e. the scope in which the current block was defined).
sub outersub ()
{
my $a;
my $b;
my $closure = sub {
say $a; #
