Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Syntactic Confectionery Delight

Re: anonymous vs named subroutines as closures

by ikegami (Pope)
on Jun 04, 2013 at 04:16 UTC ( #1036884=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to anonymous vs named subroutines as closures

Demonstration of "will not stay shared":

sub outer { my ($x) = @_; sub inner { say $x; } inner(); } # Warns Variable "$x" will not stay shared outer(4); # Prints 4 outer(6); # Prints 4!!!

Here's what's going on.

sub named { ... }

is more or less the same as

BEGIN { *named = sub { ... }; }

As such, it only captures once, when the sub is compiled.

In the above code, when outer goes out of scope, $x would normally be cleared. But since the closure still references it, a new $x is a created instead. From this point on, the $x in inner is different from the $x is outer; it "didn't stay shared".

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1036884]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others rifling through the Monastery: (5)
As of 2016-10-26 02:26 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    How many different varieties (color, size, etc) of socks do you have in your sock drawer?

    Results (330 votes). Check out past polls.