Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2012
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 08:18:47PM -0400, David Golden wrote: > 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. Not quite - we still need to fix "dynamic variables", and decide whether multiple 'our' declarations in the same scope should warn, like 'my' declarations do. -doyThread Previous | Thread Next