Stas Bekman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
local is perl4-ism, nowadays it's used only for localizing special
perl variables, like $|.
Using package variables and local() in to do the job of block-scoped
lexicals is a Perl4-ism.
On the other hand, when using global variables (in which I include
Brian McCauley wrote:
[...]
OK, your last post's examples were more to the point of wanting to destroy
objects at the end of the request, and hence here is a new summary:
- move the perl4 lib solution to the perl_reference.pod
- suggest turning a lexical variable declared with my() into a global
Stas Bekman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian McCauley wrote:
[...]
Nice, but:
+The easiest and the fastest way to solve the nested subroutines
+problem is to change Cmy to Clocal Cour for all variables for
+which you get the warning. The Chandler subroutines are never
...
[...]
[...]
In effect you use local() to undef the variable, instead of explicitly
initializing it. Why not doing this explictly?
Firstly it's conceptually neater to use local. I want to think of the
variable as local rather than as a global variable that needs to be
explicitly reset.
local is
On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 21:24, Stas Bekman wrote:
[...]
In effect you use local() to undef the variable, instead of explicitly
initializing it. Why not doing this explictly?
Firstly it's conceptually neater to use local. I want to think of the
variable as local rather than as a global
Perrin Harkins wrote:
To summarize:
- move the perl4 lib solution to the perl_reference.pod
- suggest replacing my() with our() to avoid the closure, however this change
requires that the variables will be initialized before used in most cases
(example of 'open our $foo' which doesn't need to
Brian McCauley wrote:
[...]
Nice, but:
+The easiest and the fastest way to solve the nested subroutines
+problem is to change Cmy to Clocal Cour for all variables for
+which you get the warning. The Chandler subroutines are never
...
[...]
+ local our $counter = 0;
local our? That should be
Stas Bekman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In private mail Stas Bekman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
oops, that should be the modperl list... at modperl-docs we discuss
mostly site/docs techical issues and there are very few people on this
list to get enough exposure for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In private mail Stas Bekman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
oops, that should be the modperl list... at modperl-docs we discuss
mostly site/docs techical issues and there are very few people on this
list to get enough exposure for this kind of feedback request.
Patch for The
In private mail Stas Bekman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
oops, that should be the modperl list... at modperl-docs we discuss
mostly site/docs techical issues and there are very few people on this
list to get enough exposure for this kind of feedback request.
Patch for The First Mystery section
10 matches
Mail list logo
