I may be missing your point, but based on my somewhat
fuzzy understanding:
> Oh. Duh. Why don't we have such a mechanism for matches?
>
> m/ my $date := <date> /
>
> is ambiguous to the eyes. But I think it's necessary to have a
lexical
> scoping mechanism for matches
The above would at least have to be:
m/ { my $date := <date> } /
(otherwise the 'my ' and ':=' would be matched literally.)
And you can of course do that.
But you won't be able to access $date outside the closure.
Hence the introduction of let:
m/ { let $date := <date> } /
which makes (a symbol table like entry for) $date available
somewhere via the match object.
And has the additional effect that $date (I think the whole
variable/entry, but at the very least its value) disappears
if the match backtracks over the closure.
Right?
--
ralph
