On 7/15/05, Michael G Schwern via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, to sum up... I think we all agree these should all warn. > > my $x; our $x; # this currently does not
That's a bug. > our $x; my $x; > my $x; my $x; > our $x; our $x; I disagree. This shouldn't warn. There is no masking, as demonstrated by : $ perl -e 'our $x=42; our $x; print $x' 42 > and that this should not > > package Foo; > our $x; > > package Bar; > our $x; Yes. > but this appears to be up in the air: > > package Foo; > my $x; > > package Bar; > our $x; > > Currently this warns. Rick's patch to fix "my $x; our $x;" changes this > so that it does not warn on the grounds that the "package Foo; our $x; > package Bar; our $x" case doens't warn either. 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. I agree with this. I fact I think I'd prefer not to change the cases where the masking warning is emitted purely based on the presence on package declarations. Declaring a default namespace is one thing, and doesn't affect lexically-scoped names specified with my/our. The two declaration operations are orthogonal. Don't mix them and avoid special cases.
