Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs

[Peter Scott]

At 09:01 PM 2/15/01 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:08:47AM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > However, that still doesn't get rid of the gotchas - personally I think 
> that:
> >
> > my $a, $b, $c;
> >
> > should be an error, a warning, or DWIM. Especially:
>
>Personally, I don't think so.
>
>     GetOptions (foo  =>  \my $foo,
>                 bar  =>  \my $bar);
>
>and
>
>     tie my $shoe => $tring;
>
>are just way too practical to suddenly require more hoops.

I don't want to DWIM this.  Would it be so bad to have to type

     GetOptions (foo => \my ($foo),
                 bar => \my $bar);

     tie my ($shoe) => $tring;

if we made 'my' consistent with all other functions that take lists 
(yes-I-know-it's-not-a-function)?

--
Peter Scott
Pacific Systems Design Technologies