Re: Namespaces contiguous in the entirety

[broquaint]

The package statement notifies the compiler what the following lexical scope's default namespace will be. Warning on the existence of that namespace seems a little arbitrary from that perspective.

[rir]

That is one way to look at it. I think it is more accurate to view it this way:
1. The first package specific_name statement creates a namespace and enters it.
2. Subsequent invocations simply reenter the namespace.
Having had the challenge of trying to explain the difference between C declarations and definitions to newbies; I can see how losing the distinction in dwimery would appeal as design choice for a higher level language.

My reply above to tanktalus gives more of my reason to view it this way.

Be well,
rir

[broquaint]

1. The first package specific_name statement creates a namespace and enters it.
2. Subsequent invocations simply reenter the namespace.

While you may view that as conceptually accurate, that is not really what happens, hence my confusion above. I don't think I've ever come across this being an issue, not least because I would imagine that if you called code on a class you thought had declared, when in fact you had redeclared an existing class, something would break rather loudly.

I can't think of any obvious way to do this within perl, but as you say, it would probably fairly simple just to hack the perl source and recompile.

[diotalevi]

The obvious way is to examine all the COP nodes in the compiled program and see that packages don't appear in multiple files. This is test should fit inside of a few lines.