Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs

[Nicholas Clark]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 09:05:55PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:23:10AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > But I have never found a situation where this is so useful to justify
> > the other problems it creates. However, there may well be true technical
> > reasons why "my $x, $y, $z" does not do what many think it should.
> 
> As I wrote elsewhere, other reasons not to change the behaviour of my:
> 
>     GetOptions (foo => \my $foo,
>                 bar => \my $bar);
> 
>     tie my $shoe => $tring;

Hmm. Nathan's example of my is in void context
Abigail's are not.

As there appears to be a way to tell them apart, is it possible (sane?) to
make both work? Or at least issue warnings (not mandatory, but defaulting
to on unless you have some sort of no warnings) for Nathan's case?
[where () round all three would make it do what he meant]

best way to shoot down my suggestion is an example where existing behaviour
can't be determined from void/scalar/list context.

Nicholas Clark