Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2012
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Father Chrysostomos via RT <perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote: > ‘our’ could certainly be documented better. Somewhere we need to state > it nice and clearly like this: > > C<our> makes a lexical alias to a package variable. Good way to put it. In commit 66b3001, I've adapted that and tried to clarify documentation for 'our'. In commit 4d457ce, I have removed "obsolete" from the abstract for vars.pm and instead added a phrase in the first paragraph that uses the term 'discouraged' and clarifies that it is discouraged for use within a single scope. I think that better limits *when* vars.pm is discouraged, as the rest of the documentation explains the scoping of vars.pm and use with Self/AutoLoad, for which it may indeed be appropriate. In commit 4dd9551, I clarified the 'package' documentation to refer to 'lexically-scoped' variables rather than 'lexical' variables, which might alleviate some confusion (short of documentation-wide fixes to the confusing term 'dynamic'). Ricardo and I apparently also collided on some other commits to clarify vars.pm behavior (which is across even file-scope) and once he integrates his commits, collectively, I think these all are sufficient to close this ticket. -- DavidThread Previous | Thread Next