Larry Wall writes:
> Correct, $_ is always lexical. But...
>
> : or * will it be implicitely "my $_" -- class/package lexical
>
> There's no such thing as a "class/package lexical". I think you
> mean file-scoped lexical here.
ooo, now I understand : *scope* is orthogonal concept to class/module
symbol-tables . scope is related only to ( current ) lexical
symbol-table. and the outmost scope is file scope . all other ( inner
) lexical scopes are enclosed by closure braces wheither it is a
definition of class , subroutine or loop .
>
> : will it be an error to declare it as "our $_" ;
>
> No, in this case, $_ is still considered a lexical, but it just happens
> to be aliased to a variable in the current package.
>
which variable ? it seems that "our $_" is something like that (???)
my $_ # implicit -- at the beginning of file ( or actually any other
# lexical scope
..
..
..
our $_ ; # translated to : our $Main::_ := $_ ;
.. # or $_ := $Main::_
..
..
???
( i have in mind that "our $thing " is something like this : "dont
worry , $thing is variable from current package )
but that would be strange , because I thaought that my/our manipulate
names in symbol-table , while aliasing is compleatly orthogonal to
that. or "our $_" is just special case with perl making additional
magic .
> aliased. But the name $_ will always be interpreted according to the
> lexical definitions set up by "my" and "our" (including the implicit
> outer "my").
>
arcadi
