Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2010
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Reini Urban <rurban@x-ray.at> wrote:
> Zefram schrieb:
>
> Dave Mitchell wrote:
>>
>>> What do you think is the bug? It seems to be behaving the way I expect.
>>>
>>
>> The code looks like it closes over the lexical variable $x. That lexical
>> variable is then set to 6, so when the closure is later called (through
>> the&foo name) it would be expected for it to return 6. This is how
>> closures normally work, both in other languages, and in Perl when that
>> particular form with the () prototype is not used. For the closure
>> operation to return a constant-5 sub cannot be justified by reference
>> to closure theory; it can only be explained as a special exception in
>> Perl semantics, which is what it is.
>>
>
> Sorry, I don't understand that special theory of yours.
> Why on earth should
>
> BEGIN{my $x = 5; *foo = sub(){$x}; $x=6} print foo'
> ever print 6 again?
>
Because
BEGIN{my $x = 5; *foo = sub(){$x;$x}; $x=6} print foo
does?
>
> We are using lexical scope, not dynamic scope.
> With dynamic scoping, i.e. local $x = 5; you could justify a 6.
>
> Is it really that perl coders still cannot understand the difference
> between lexical and dynamic scope?
Not in this case. We are expecting the subroutine to close over the
lexical variable, as subroutines tend to ...
Eirik
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next