> Piers Cawley said: > in other words, some way of declaring that a subroutine wants to hang onto > every lexical it can see in its lexical stack, not matter what static analysis > may say.
I'm not arguing with the idea, in general. I just want to point out that this implies that you're going to hold onto every single file-scoped lexical, leading to quite a bit of action-at-a-distance. Maybe, instead, you should say "sub is lexical_stack(N)" where N is the number of scoping levels it will hold onto in addition to any lexical it actually refers to. I would have 0 be the innermost scope, 1 be the enclosing scope, etc. Rob
