Re^2: coding rulesby ihb (Deacon)
|on Jun 12, 2005 at 00:16 UTC||Need Help??|
Yes, it is a pain to fully qualify package variables, but that's the point: their cumbersome nomenclature indicates that they should be used as little as possible.
... and once you change the package name you'll almost definately create a bug. This might not apply to you as you're mostly a script author, but as a module author this just isn't a good advice.
Why should package variables be more cumbersome and less used that file-scoped lexicals?
Btw, why do you feel a need to typographically distinguish file-scoped lexicals from package variables? During development I sometimes go from file-scoped lexical to package variable and back to file-scoped lexical again, and in my module I often don't care what nature the variable is since I inside the file usually just have one package. (If I have two packages I usually put them in different lexical scopes, and put any shared variable at file scope. Keeping track of those very few variables isn't hard, especially since they're the first thing you see when you open the file.)
I'm interested in what made you choose this style with regards to package variables.
See perltoc if you don't know which perldoc to read!