> [ysth - Wed Jul 13 14:13:53 2005]: > > Wording looks good, but I'd prefer to see C<use strict 'vars'>.
Here it is again with that fixed plus the simple explaination lifted from Randal's column. http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/UnixReview/col54.html I also clarified in the cross-package example that the $bar used in package Bar refers to $Foo::bar. Didn't feel it was entirely obvious. C<our> associates a simple name with a package variable in the current package for the remander of the lexical scope. The listed variables are declared to be valid globals within the enclosing block, file, or C<eval>. That is, it has the same scoping rules as a "my" declaration, but does not create a local variable. When C<use strict 'vars'> is in effect, the C<our> declaration lets you use the declared global variable without qualifying it with a package name. (But only within the lexical scope of the C<our> declaration. In this it differs from "use vars", which is package scoped.) If more than one value is listed, the list must be placed in parentheses. our $foo; our($bar, $baz); An C<our> declaration declares a global variable that will be visible across its entire lexical scope, even across package boundaries. The package in which the variable is entered is determined at the point of the declaration, not at the point of use. This means the following behavior holds: package Foo; our $bar; # declares $Foo::bar for rest of lexical scope $bar = 20; package Bar; print $bar; # prints 20 as it refers to $Foo::bar
our.patch
Description: Binary data
