> If I have: > > (my $foo1, $bar1) = (my $foo2, $bar2) = ("foo", "bar"); > > then '(my $foo1, $bar1)' is in void context, while '(my $foo2, $bar2)' > isn't. > > Do you really want them to behave differently? > > > best way to shoot down my suggestion is an example where existing behaviour > > can't be determined from void/scalar/list context. > > Will the above do? well, I'd say no. How many people are going to run into this and have it not do what they expect as opposed to: my $a, $b, $c; However, I think that: my $a, $b, $c; and my $a, $b, $c = @_; should work the same and they wouldn't do so if 'void' context was the only criteria used. Ed
- 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
- 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 Edward Peschko
- 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 abigail
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs abigail
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Peter Scott
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Bryan C . Warnock