At 06:53 PM 2/8/2006 -0800, Glenn Linderman wrote:
>My understanding is that in a file foo.pl
>
>my global_foo;
>sub counter { return global_foo++; }
>
>that sub counter is a closure, which probably is even further outside
>your thought processes-- I was surprised to learn that from Dave, but
>given the above key chararcteristic, it clearly would be.
Well yeah. "Closure" just refers to the currently defined context, which is
just as valid for the global scope as a block. Closure is probably a bad
term for what's really going on. Probably something like context
definition, or local execution scope is better. ;)
>Named subroutines can be defined in nested scopes, but their own scope
>is not nested. Given that definition, they work fine. If you expect
>them to have different scopes due to familiarity with languages such as
>Pascal that implemented nested named subroutines, then you will be
>surprised.
I highly doubt that some clever perl developer thought this out ahead of
time. More like the law of unintended consequences. And "a bug? no, it's a
feature".
--
REMEMBER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ---=< WTC 911 >=--
"...ne cede malis"
00000100
_______________________________________________
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
