Jenda Krynicky wrote: > From: "Rob Dixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> "Jenda Krynicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> 3E2E9EDB.5722.62EB5D@localhost">news:3E2E9EDB.5722.62EB5D@localhost... >>> From: "Rob Dixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> There was an example in there that demonstrated >>>> using 'our' to implement a C-like 'static' variable. >>> >>> Well ... if you mean something like >>> >>> int Inc() { >>> static int cnt; >>> return cnt++; >>> } >>> >>> then our() is not the right way to do that in Perl. the our() only >>> allows you to use the short name instead of $the::complete::one. >> >> It also protects your variable from modification by code which hasn't >> declared it. > > #!perl > use strict; > > sub Inc { > our $inc; > return $inc++; > } > > print Inc(),"\n"; > print Inc(),"\n"; > $main::inc = 100; > print Inc(),"\n"; > __END__ > > I would not call this protection.
I would. I would be surprised if this was coded accidentally! This is a valid circumvention of the access limitations, which protect programmers from themselves but still allow access in a special case. Non-exported module contents can also be accessed this way, but that isn't considered a breach of security either. I would be more unhappy if such a piece of code was forced to declare the variable again with 'our' and thereby give unfettered access throughout the scope. Cheers, Rob -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
