Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs

[Peter Scott]

At 01:15 PM 2/15/01 -0500, John Porter wrote:
> >     my $a, $b, $c;            # only $a is lexically scoped
>
>RTFM.

Quite.  But on a tangent, I see no good reason why this shouldn't be given 
the same interpretation as "my ($a, $b, $c)" on the grounds that functions 
taking list arguments that omit their parentheses swallow up the following 
list.  And if the retort is, "my isn't a function," then I would like to 
know what it really is and why it's listed in perlfunc along with other 
things that aren't functions.

If that's not enough controversy I can also ask about things which are 
labelled as both functions and operators :-)

--
Peter Scott
Pacific Systems Design Technologies