On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:45:01 -0400, Ted Ashton wrote:
>While I'm not yet prepared to advocate any of the suggestions, *if* lexicals
>were the default, the above code could be written:
>
> $x = 2;
> if (...) {
> $x = 1;
> ...
> }
> print "$x\n";
>
>Could it not?
Gee, that is the same situation as we have now, with global variables
and without strict. The only difference will surface only when your
project consists of more than one source file: file scoped lexicals vs.
everything trancending globals.
So: what good is it?
--
Bart.
- Re: C<strict> as default (was Re: RFC ... Nathan Wiger
- Re: C<strict> as default (was Re:... mjd-perl-list-lang-strict
- Re: C<strict> as default (was... Nathan Wiger
- Re: C<strict> as default ... mjd-perl-list-language-strict
- Re: C<strict> as default (was... Nathan Wiger
- Clarification on Default Scoping (w... Nathan Wiger
- Re: Clarification on Default Sc... Mark-Jason Dominus
- Re: Clarification on Default Sc... Peter Scott
- Re: Clarification on Default Sc... mjd-perl-list-language-strict
- Re: Clarification on Default Sc... Ted Ashton
- Re: Clarification on Default Sc... Bart Lateur
- Re: Clarification on Default Sc... Ted Ashton
- Re: Clarification on Default Sc... Bart Lateur
- Re: Clarification on Default Sc... Monty Taylor
- Re: C<strict> as default (was Re: RFC ... Nathan Wiger
- Re: C<strict> as default (was Re:... Michael Stevens
- Re: C<strict> as default (was... mjd-perl-list-lang-strict
- Re: C<strict> as default ... Michael Stevens
- Re: C<strict> as default ... Peter Scott
- Re: C<strict> as default ... Peter Scott
- Re: C<strict> as default ... Johan Vromans
