note hv Maybe it would be easier to express the distinction as spatial versus temporal scoping, which is an approach that I think makes sense at least until you start throwing threads and processes into the mix. Let's take this example:<code> print "Just before start of scope\n"; { print "Just after start of scope\n"; my $a = 1; local $b = 1; print "a=$a, b=$b\n"; foo(); print "Just before end of scope\n"; } print "Just after end of scope\n"; </code> Now, in this example, the line '<code>my $a = 1;</code>' introduces a lexical variable. Any reference to <code>$a</code> in the statements following that introduction until the end of the scope refer to this newly introduced variable - and only those lines. This is a spatial scope: if the <code>foo</code> subroutine refers to a <code>$a</code> variable, it won't see this <code>$a</code>, because <code>foo</code> is not defined within this scope. The line '<code>local $b = 1;</code>' introduces a localisation - it tells the interpreter to save the current copy of the (package) variable <code>$b</code>, to be restored when execution reaches the end of the scope. Now it is a matter of time: after this localisation has been executed, anyone that looks at this package variable <code>$b</code> before the end of this scope is reached will see the localised version. If the <code>foo</code> subroutine refers to the package variable <code>$b</code>, it will see the localised version (for this call, at least). Does that help at all? Hugo 213855 242833