|Perl: the Markov chain saw|
But surely the soul of wisdom is to avoid unintended consequences.
Is it possible to define a subroutine without creating a unique lexical scope for it? Offhand, I can't see a way.
No, But that doesn't completely negate the possibilities of unintended consequences.
Eg. As you follow the fairly common practice of placing your subroutines after your 'main' code; the possibilities for unintentional (and silent) closures abound.
Again, this is utterly without consideration of effects on performance,
Out of context, that sounds like I'm favoring this technique for performance. But if you read back, I'm most definitely not.
(More on this in response to your other post.)
that depends on local-izing everything in sight
Such exaggerations do not advance the discussion :)
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.