so these two are equivalent ???
{
my $x is yours ;
my $y is yours ;
my $z is yours ;
1...
sub_a ;
2...
}
sub sub_a ( ; $x is yours, $y is yours ) { ...3... } ;
- same as -
# ( here no special meaning for "is yours" -- just another property )
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 08:46:03PM -0600, Me wrote:
: First, I'd like to confirm I've understood
: C and C right:
:
: 1. C dynamically scopes changes to a
:variable's value to the enclosing block.
:It does not dynamically scope the name.
:The variable can obviously be a global.
:It
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> :It can also make sense if it is lexical.
> :Is the latter currently allowed?
>
> I'm planning to allow it unless someone can come up with a good reason not to.
What were the good reasons for not allowing localized lexicals in Perl 5?
--
User:
Thanks for the clear answers.
Larry:
> I think that currying should be extended to
> handle any caller-instituted defaulting.
Argh. So obvious! (So of course I missed it.)
> Basically, the parameter list of the subroutine
> is already providing a limited namespace to be
> shared by caller and c
> "Simon" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Simon> What were the good reasons for not allowing localized lexicals in Perl 5?
Nobody could explain it in 50 words or less.
"What the hell is 'local my $foo = 35'?"
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503
Larry's earlier response means this 'yours'
idea is history, but for closure, yes, this
seems to be headed in the right direction,
at least in theory. It may have even been
practical to implement it thru the standard
property mechanism.
> so these two are equivalent ???
>
> {
> my $x is yours ;
>
