On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 08:14:26PM -0400, Rick Delaney wrote:
> > But I say that's a
> > special case to do with the fact that our's mix of two scoping
> > mechanisms, lexical and package, runs afoul of multi-package-in-one-file
> > programming idioms.
> >
> > package Foo;
> > our @ISA = qw(...); # or $VERSION or @EXPORT or ...
> >
> > package Bar;
> > our @ISA = qw(...);
> >
> > There's no corresponding idiom for "package Foo; my $x; package Bar; our
> > $x" or vice-versa. Therefore, it should warn about the mask.
>
> I am almost convinced by this argument.
What are your reservations?
I'd add to the argument that:
package Foo;
our $x = 42;
package Bar;
my $x = 23;
has been warning since 5.6.x and I can't recall anyone complaining.
Switching my and our around doesn't really change the scenario.
--
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern
ROCKS FALL! EVERYONE DIES!
http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp05032002.shtml
