in reply to Re^7: PadWalker's closed_over - but for our variables?
in thread PadWalker's closed_over - but for our variables?

The term "lexical" is messed up tho.

No. Maybe imprecise since there two kinds of lexically-scoped variables, but not messed up.

I attempt to stay as close to perlglossary as possible.

Don't do that by by reinventing what global means (or basing yourself on a passage that does that). *That* would be messed up.

$_ and similar have been called superglobals.

Seeking work! You can reach me at ikegami@adaelis.com

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^9: PadWalker's closed_over - but for our variables?
by LanX (Cardinal) on Apr 05, 2021 at 22:18 UTC
    > > The term "lexical" is messed up tho.

    > No. Maybe imprecise since there two kinds of lexically-scoped variables, but not messed up.

    perlglossary is explicit that our-vars are not "lexicals".

    https://perldoc.perl.org/perlglossary#lexical-variable

    A variable subject to lexical scoping, declared by my. Often just called a “lexical”. (The our declaration declares a lexically scoped name for a global variable, which is not itself a lexical variable.)

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
    Wikisyntax for the Monastery

Re^9: PadWalker's closed_over - but for our variables?
by LanX (Cardinal) on Apr 05, 2021 at 22:12 UTC
    > Don't do that by by reinventing what global means

    I didn't, I cited perlglossary which was written by Larry.

    > $_ and similar have been called superglobals.

    never heard the term superglobal, any reference?

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
    Wikisyntax for the Monastery