On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 01:20:43PM -0300, Branden wrote: > `my' DWIMs. `my' will do what *you* mean at the cost of every single existing perl programmer that currently uses it to relearn what it means. Not a good trade off IMHO. I'd rather `my' does what *I* mean which is what it does now. > I know this is bad for who already writes Perl code. But it would be very > good for who learns Perl and doesn't understand exactly when he should and > when he should not put parenthesis around `my's list of variables. If they are learning perl, then when and where to use parentheses is part of the learning curve. This is a Good Thing. MHO, -Scott -- Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- 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
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Bryan C . Warnock
- 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 John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Simon Cozens
- 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 John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Piers Cawley
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Peter Scott