develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from July 2012

Re: [perl #113974] package NAMESPACE manpage comments

Thread Previous | Thread Next
July 8, 2012 04:03
Re: [perl #113974] package NAMESPACE manpage comments
Message ID:
On 7 July 2012 15:50, Ricardo Signes <> wrote:
> * demerphq <> [2012-07-06T12:16:19]
>> Anyway, I really hope Ricardo puts some thought into this, at a deep
>> level, and resists the urge to base his decisions on optimizations and
>> new features which IMO break the original model and then gets back to
>> us with how it SHOULD be seen and dealt with, and then we can move on
>> from there.
>> I personally will not accept any argument that is based on the current
>> broken behavior of our as I consider the behavior of the following
>> code to be plain and simply a bug.
>> [code]
> I'm just not sure what you're suggesting.
> I see that when I asked what you thought your code sample should do, it didn't
> get back to the list.  Oops!
> "our" seems to do exactly what I'd expect given the explanation I've always had
> in my head: a lexical name pointing at package storage.

My understanding of our was that it was intended as a lexically scoped
equivalent to use vars.

The proposed implementation appears to have provided some subtly
different behavior.

> I went and reviewed the original thread about 'our' here:
> -- once again taking us to the
> summer of 1999!
> I didn't see anything convincing me that "our" was supposed to work differently
> than it does now.

At the intent level or the implementation level? I have added things
to perl with a specific intent only to discover that the
implementation resulted in something a little different than I had
planned. People reviewing my implementation would naturally assume
that what it does was what it was intended to do, despite the fact it


perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About