John Porter wrote:
> Come on. What's so hard about knowing
> ( $x, $y, $z )
> is a bunch of variables, and
> my( $x, $y, $z )
> is a bunch of variables declared local.
> Answer: nothing.
>
If you see some code saying
my $a, $b, $c;
Would you say $b and $c are subject to a different scoping rule than $a ? I
know I wouldn't!
It actually isn't hard for us to know `my' should have parenthesis when used
for more than one variable, but it's a difficult thing for beginners. The
fact with the <FHANDLE> makes the things even more hard for them.
Having `my' with the same precedence rules as `print' for example, would
probably end with these problems, while preserving the old-style.
my $a, $b, $c; # all the three are lexicals
my ($a, $b, $c); # idem
my $a, $b, $c = @_; # $c gets @_ in scalar context
# which is the same as:
$a, $b, $c = @_; # $c gets @_ in scalar context
my ($a, $b, $c) = @_; # the same as:
($a, $b, $c) = @_;
Only what would change is:
func(\my $a, 1, 2); # wouldn't work, but
func(\my($a), 1, 2); # or:
func(\(my $a), 1, 2); # would work.
and:
otherfunc my $x => 1 # wouldn't work, but
otherfunc my($x) => 1 # would work.
I don't think it's much of a change, since probably most code that did work
would continue to work, except for these cases above here, but I actually
think those aren't the most common cases of usage. Oh! Of course, there's
also the monster Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
(my $a, $b, local $,, my $c) = @_;
This very common (I use it in all my scripts!) snippet would have to be
rewritten to the much more confuse
(my($a),our($b),local($,),my($c)) = @_;
What is it, anyway? A joke? (There's Perl poetry, why can't be there Perl
jokes?) Who writes this kind of code anyway?
- Branden
