Dave Mitchell wrote:
> foo() is a closure created at compile time. By the time the main {} block
> has been executed (but before foo() is called), the $outer:x is undef,
> and $foo:x is 'bar' (standard closure stuff). When foo() is executed,
> the anon sub is cloned, and at that time, $anon:x is set from from foo's pad,
> so it gets 'bar'.
That explains it. I still don't like it. ;-)
> (I've changed 'closure' to 'outer' since John Porter's just pointed
> out to me privately that 'closure' is grammatical nonsense)
> So instead, I'd like
>
> "my outer $x" to be shorthand for
I guess you missed where I suggested that putting "my" on that
declaration is also counter-sensical, not to mention redundant.
"my" implies a brand-spanking-new lexical variable attached
to this very scope. The semantics of "outer" (or "closed"...)
can be defined to imply a lexical variable.
--
John Porter
