On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:49:44AM -0800, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > >>>>> "Peter" == Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Peter> Quite. But on a tangent, I see no good reason why this shouldn't be > Peter> given the same interpretation as "my ($a, $b, $c)" on the grounds that > Peter> functions taking list arguments that omit their parentheses swallow up > Peter> the following list. > > *some* functions. localtime doesn't. my is a unary function, prototyped > vaguely as (\$) or (\@) or (\%). If my() would be an unary function, how come that my ($foo, $bar); makes $bar a lexical variable? my just isn't a function. Just like return or while aren't, even when followed by parenthesis. They are language constructs. Abigail
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs 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 subs John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Randal L. Schwartz
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs abigail
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs abigail
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Nicholas Clark
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Peter Scott
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Nathan Wiger