On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 04:17:14PM -0700, Michael G Schwern via RT wrote:
> So, to sum up... I think we all agree these should all warn.
>
> my $x; our $x; # this currently does not
> our $x; my $x;
> my $x; my $x;
> our $x; our $x;
>
> and that this should not
>
> package Foo;
> our $x;
>
> package Bar;
> our $x;
>
> but this appears to be up in the air:
>
> package Foo;
> my $x;
>
> package Bar;
> our $x;
>
> Currently this warns. Rick's patch to fix "my $x; our $x;" changes this
> so that it does not warn on the grounds that the "package Foo; our $x;
> package Bar; our $x" case doens't warn either.
My patch doesn't change that case. It still warns. It does change
package Foo;
our $x;
package Bar;
my $x;
This currently warns. After the patch it doesn't. The reason is as
described above. More specifically, we don't see a need for a warning
when we mask an our variable that was declared in a different package
than the current package we are declaring in. I think whether we are
declaring a my or our variable should make no difference. They are both
masking the same thing in the exact same way.
> But I say that's a
> special case to do with the fact that our's mix of two scoping
> mechanisms, lexical and package, runs afoul of multi-package-in-one-file
> programming idioms.
>
> package Foo;
> our @ISA = qw(...); # or $VERSION or @EXPORT or ...
>
> package Bar;
> our @ISA = qw(...);
>
> There's no corresponding idiom for "package Foo; my $x; package Bar; our
> $x" or vice-versa. Therefore, it should warn about the mask.
I am almost convinced by this argument.
--
Rick Delaney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
