On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 09:50:26PM -0400, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
Based on what I rememeber from the long threads about this,
> 3. Is C<%MY> intended to reflect the PAD?
loosely speaking yes.
>
> 3a. If so, how can one distinguish among the e.g. many C<my $foo>
> variables declared within the current function?
It was decreed that %MY only sees stuff in the inner-most lexical scope
(so the Perl6 version of a pad is 'bigger' than what %MY sees):
{
my $x = 1;
{
exists %MY::{'$x'}; # false
print %MY::{'$x'}; # undef
print $x; # 1
%MY{'$x'} = 2;
print %MY::{'$x'}; # 2
print $x; # 2
{
exists %MY::{'$x'}; # false
print %MY::{'$x'}; # undef
print $x; # 2
}
}
exists %MY::{'$x'}; # true
print %MY::{'$x'}; # 1
print $x; # 1
}
>
> 3b. If not, how are lexical adjustments to C<%MY> unwound? Or are
> they? If they're not, I can actually see the idea that could be
> part of the base utility of C<%MY>.
I think the main intent of %MY:: is to allow import() to lexically affect
the caller, ie
sub import {
caller(1).MY{'&foo'} = sub { ... };
}
(for some vague handwaving interpretation of caller() and MY)
Dave.
--
My get-up-and-go just got up and went.
