RE: Should MY:: be a real symbol table?

[Sam Tregar]

On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Brent Dax wrote:

> but in that case the inner my($x) could be translated to
> temp($MY::x)--the behavior is basically the same.  (Actually, if pads
> are replaced with stashes, is there any situation where my($x) can't be
> translated to temp($MY::x)?  Hmmm...)

Closures, for one.  File-scoped lexicals for another.  Lexical variables
are very different beasts from package variables.  They are not compatible
in some significant ways.

Now, that said, we'll need to do something better than pads to support
%MY.  If that means full-blown symbol tables for every scope...  Well,
I'd be surprised.  There's a reason lexical variables are faster than
package variables and I imagine we'd like to keep it that way.

-sam