Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs

[Branden]

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I wrote elsewhere, other reasons not to change the behaviour of my:
>
>     GetOptions (foo => \my $foo,
>                 bar => \my $bar);
>

GetOptions (foo => \my($foo),
            bar => \my($bar));


>     tie my $shoe => $tring;
>

tie my($shoe) => $tring;
# or
tie (my $shoe) => $tring;



I see no problem with those, even if my binds weaker than it binds now.
Quoting from perlfunc:

  ``It LOOKS like a function, therefore it IS a function''

Not I'm not saying `my' should be changed. Its way of working is already in
our subconscients. Changing it would be probably bad. But it surely isn't
consistent with the rest of the language.

- Branden