On Tue, 23 May 2000, Perrin Harkins wrote: > Your sub &x is a closure. That's why it returns the previous value of > $x. When it gets re-defined, it should start looking at the value of the > new $x. nevermind what i said in the other reply about not being a closure. you're right, it is by definition, i just assumed you were refering to the Apache::Registry trap.
- Re: global variables and reparsing question (low priori... Ken Williams
- global variables and reparsing (short reproducible exam... Marc Lehmann
- Re: global variables and reparsing (short reproduc... Doug MacEachern
- Re: global variables and reparsing (short repr... Marc Lehmann
- Re: global variables and reparsing (short ... Stas Bekman
- Re: global variables and reparsing (sh... Marc Lehmann
- Re: global variables and reparsin... Perrin Harkins
- Re: global variables and repa... Marc Lehmann
- Re: global variables and repa... Doug MacEachern
- Re: global variables and reparsing (short reproduc... Perrin Harkins
- Re: global variables and reparsing (short repr... Doug MacEachern
- Re: global variables and reparsing (short ... Marc Lehmann
- Re: global variables and reparsing (sh... tayers
- Re: global variables and reparsin... Randal L. Schwartz
- Re: global variables and repa... Stas Bekman
- Re: global variables and reparsing (short repr... Marc Lehmann
- Re: global variables and reparsing (short ... Perrin Harkins
- Re: global variables and reparsing (sh... Marc Lehmann
- Re: global variables and reparsing (sh... Doug MacEachern
- Re: global variables and reparsin... Marc Lehmann
- Re: global variables and repa... Doug MacEachern