http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=1014282


in reply to Regex re_eval - requires explicit package name

Should I consider this a bug?

I think probably not, I vaguely recall that with this experimental feature, you're supposed to use dynamic/local vars instead of lexical/my vars

update: Re: (??{ code }) versus (?PARNO) for recursive regular expressions (lexicals won't stay shared ), Variable scoping oddity inside (??{ ... }), (??{ lexical variable }), Scoping issues with code evaluation asserstions?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Regex re_eval - requires explicit package name
by dave_the_m (Monsignor) on Jan 20, 2013 at 14:02 UTC
    I vaguely recall that with this experimental feature, you're supposed to use dynamic/local vars instead of lexical/my vars
    That's because the code was exceedingly buggy and would usually use the wrong pad, resulting in unexpected behaviour or seg faults before 5.17.1 (for which I completely rewrote the feature). Its now safe and sane to use lexicals, modulo any new bugs I may have introduced.

    Dave.