On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 09:14:51AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 07:19:31PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote: > : I'm guessing that the statement at S06:2362 is an artifact of > : an earlier draft that didn't have the section on MAIN subroutines, > : but I'm wanting to verify that this is the case (or seek further > : clarification if it isn't). > > That's correct. We could fix it two ways. Either the mainline code > gets a consistent new name, or the outermost scope is redefined to an INIT > if there is a user-defined MAIN. I can argue it both ways.
FWIW, I like the consistent new name approach, as it provides a good handle for "outermost block" that might otherwise be missing. Simply making the outermost scope an INIT (I assume anonymous) doesn't really provide that. For now it's sufficient to have the clarification on MAIN...thanks! Pm
