Re: [perl #15800] [PATCH] lexical scope ops, test and example

At 10:16 AM -0600 7/30/02, Jonathan Sillito wrote:
>Hey, thanks for reading this over. It is not a typo, but it may be
>incorrect. My code does overwrite previous lexicals in enclosing scopes
>(i.e. lexicals in pads lower on the stack), but maybe I have the
>semantics of the store_lex op wrong?

Yup, lexical pads should go away and their effects go away when you 
exit their scope. Fix that and this patch can go in, as it gets a 
good chunk of the semantics we need.
-- 
                                         Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
dan@sidhe.org                         have teddy bears and even
                                       teddy bears get drunk

• Re: [perl #15800] [PATCH] lexical scope ops, test and example by Melvin Smith
• Re: [perl #15800] [PATCH] lexical scope ops, test and example by Jonathan Sillito
• Re: [perl #15800] [PATCH] lexical scope ops, test and example by Dan Sugalski
• [perl #15800] [PATCH] lexical scope ops, test and example by Jonathan Sillito
• Re: [perl #15800] [PATCH] lexical scope ops, test and example by Stephen Rawls
• Re: [perl #15800] [PATCH] lexical scope ops, test and example by Jonathan Sillito
• Re: [perl #15800] [PATCH] lexical scope ops, test and example by Dan Sugalski
• Re: [perl #15800] [PATCH] lexical scope ops, test and example by Simon Glover