Rod Adams writes: > Considering that "proper" and common usage, not to mention strictures, > dictates a heavy insistence on 'my'. I will thus assume that creation > of lexical variables with 'my' far out numbers the creation of package > space globals. Should we not then have it where it's the default > behavior, and creation of package ones take explicit declaration (via > 'our')?
Larry has addressed this before, coining "I made 'my' short for a reason". Python and Ruby both autodeclare in the lexical scope like this, and some people like that. Sometimes you see bogus assignments in those languages just to declare a variable in an outer scope. Also, the idea is a bit brittle in the face of large subs. If you change the control flow a little bit, you might accidentally change a variable's scope, and then what you thought was one variable just became two distinct lexicals. There are pros and cons, and it basically ends up being a design choice. > Well, at least when strictures are on. When they are off, the coder is > obviously playing fast and loose, and should get the easy 'everything > global' behavior. When strictures are on, the compiler ought to die if you're tyring to use a variable without declaration. This is another reason why Perl doesn't like autodeclaration. Luke
