Re^2: Is there a problem with using barewords as filehandles ?

> Bareword filehandles are essentially global

Sorry for nitpicking but they are package variables not full globals.

Conflicts can be avoided with proper use of package directives.

Special variables are real globals, they are available everywhere but always belong to main:: package (IIRC)

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)

Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

Comment on Re^2: Is there a problem with using barewords as filehandles ? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Is there a problem with using barewords as filehandles ? by hippo (Bishop) on Jul 01, 2020 at 11:34 UTC
Sorry for nitpicking but they are package variables not full globals. No need to be sorry! You are quite correct and it's an important distinction. It has been so long since I actually used a user-defined bareword filehandle that I had forgotten that they are indeed package scoped.	[reply]
Re^3: Is there a problem with using barewords as filehandles ? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jul 19, 2020 at 11:59 UTC
Package variables are global (visible everywhere).	[reply]
Re^4: Is there a problem with using barewords as filehandles ? by LanX (Saint) on Jul 19, 2020 at 12:14 UTC
They are accessible everywhere. To become visible you either need to ... be in the right package use the fully qualified name be in the lexical scope of an our declaration In Perl, only certain special variables are truly global... Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]
Re^5: Is there a problem with using barewords as filehandles ? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jul 19, 2020 at 23:23 UTC
Except it's always visible. Yes, you can only use its abbreviated name in some places. So? That doesn't reduce its scope.	[reply]


Syntactic Confectionery Delight
	PerlMonks