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
- Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Michael G Schwern
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for su... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for su... John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Peter Scott
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs David Grove
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Nathan Wiger
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for su... John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Randal L. Schwartz
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden