"TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" wrote:
Here your expectations might be disappointed, sorry.
The non-symbolic form $*Main::foo = 'bar' creates code that
makes sure that the lhs results in a proper scalar container.
The symbolic form might not be so nice and return undef!
Then undef = 'bar' of course let'
HaloO Matthew,
you wrote:
I wasn't getting hung up on whether $::($varname) should somehow be
cached to avoid a dynamic lookup based on the current value of $varname
every time. And I assume that if $*Main::foo hadn't been created,
assigning to $::($varname) would create it as expected (again
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, "TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" wrote:
Matthew Hodgson wrote:
I guess $::('Foo') was a bad example - $Foo="Foo"; $::($Foo) would have
been better at illustrating my point - which was that if $::($Foo)
searches outwards through namespace for a variable whose name is held in
$Foo, t
Matthew Hodgson wrote:
I guess $::('Foo') was a bad example - $Foo="Foo"; $::($Foo) would have
been better at illustrating my point - which was that if $::($Foo)
searches outwards through namespace for a variable whose name is held in
$Foo, then $::Foo should end up referring to the same variab
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, "TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" wrote:
Matthew Hodgson wrote:
These rules are all fair enough - but they are then ambiguous for $::Foo.
Is that the leaf name variable Foo in your current (innermost) namespace?
It is not ambiguous if the sigil rules that expression. I assume
that t
Matthew Hodgson wrote:
These rules are all fair enough - but they are then ambiguous for
$::Foo. Is that the leaf name variable Foo in your current (innermost)
namespace?
It is not ambiguous if the sigil rules that expression. I assume
that the parameters of a sub are definining innermost name
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, "TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" wrote:
Matthew Hodgson wrote:
I'm very surprised that package variables end up in OUR::, however -
because surely they're not necessarily lexically scoped - and the whole
point of 'our' was lexical global scoping, right? :/
Sorry, what is 'lexical
Matthew Hodgson wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
The * looks like a twigil but it isn't really. It's short for "*::",
Is *:: going up to the outermost Perl6 bubble or to the interpreter
that handles it? I mean where do gateways to other languages show
up: parallel to *::Perl6 lik
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 07:25:35PM +0100, Matthew Hodgson wrote:
:
: So the question is: what is the correct syntax for referring to package
: variables in the default namespace?
The * looks like a twigil but it isn't really. It's short for "*::",
where
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 07:25:35PM +0100, Matthew Hodgson wrote:
: Hi all,
:
: I've spent some of the afternoon wading through A12 and S10 trying to
: thoroughly understand scope in perl 6, in light of the death of use vars
: and the addition of class (as well as package & module) namespaces.
:
Hi all,
I've spent some of the afternoon wading through A12 and S10 trying to
thoroughly understand scope in perl 6, in light of the death of use vars
and the addition of class (as well as package & module) namespaces.
In the process I came up against some confusion concerning how the default
11 matches
Mail list logo