Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs

[John Porter]

Edward Peschko wrote:
> well, for the small fraction of people that use it, they probably are 
> experienced and know to use parens to disambiguate.

No, *everyone* knows to use parens to disambiguate.


> And anyways:
>   my $a, $b, $c = @_;
> not working is 'very hard to bugtrack and totally unexpected' for a larger 
> percentage of perl programmers out there. 

False.  Use strict catches this right away.


> How about 'an implicit parens around a set of statements separated by commas
> in any context'? This is consistent
> 
> $a, $b, $c = $d, $e, $f; # ($a, $b, $c) = ($d, $e, $f);

WHY?  WTF does that buy you?  It just breaks everything!



> And if you say something like:
>   $a, $b, $c == 10, $d == 11
> you need to disambiguate the sub-statements by saying
>   $a, $b, ($c ==10), ($d == 11)

Oh, that's a terrific improvement.
Basically you want to change (= break) the current precedence
of the comma operator.  Thank you, Mr. Language Designer.


-- 
John Porter

Ann wenno haddum billizac...