So loop "localisation" is different to the "localisation" done by local?

#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
our $uid;
my @array = ("one","two","three");

for (my $i = 0; $i < @array; $i++) {
  local $uid = $array[$i];
  print "uid in loop=$uid\n";
  # prints each value of $uid as expected
  mail($uid);
}

sub mail {
  # never prints the value of $uid ? ?
  print "uid in sub=$uid\n";
}
[download]

Seems so. Effectively, the loop variable has no relationship with any pre-existing variable with the same name:

my $i; 
for $i ( 1..10 ){ 
    1; 
}; 
print $i };;
Use of uninitialized value $i in print at (eval 9) line 1, <STDIN> lin
+e 1.
[download]

I believe it is a throw-over from pre-lexical Perl.

I've often wished (and occasionally argued in favour of), that for didn't localise pre-existing, lexical loop variables.

It makes for messy workarounds to the situation where a counting loop can exit early conditionally, and you want to know how far it counted:

my $i;
for $i ( 1 .. $N ) {
    last if <SOMECOND>;
    ...
}
## Here we have no way of knowing if we took an early exit;
## thus necessitating additional, unnecessary complexity to retain or 
+discover that.
[download]

---

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.

RIP Neil Armstrong

Effectively, the loop variable has no relationship with any pre-existing variable with the same name:

Same goes for local, fyi.

>perl -E"say 0+\$x; local $x; say 0+\$x;"
4885852
2403948
[download]

I've often wished (and occasionally argued in favour of), that for didn't localise pre-existing, lexical loop variables.

It would be useful and intuitive. It would drastically change the behaviour of the following, though

for $lex (...) {
   push @f, sub { ... $lex ... };
}
[download]

As it is now, I never use a pre-existing var.

> So loop "localisation" is different to the "localisation" done by local?

yes and no, since (unfortunately) you can't use local with lexicals!

But foreach tries to mimic this behaviour (a tribute to DWIM)

As you can see localization is as predicted with package vars, but seems to rebind the var to the new pad for lexical vars.

lanx@ubuntu:~$ perl
our $i;
for $i (1..9) {
  tst();
}
sub tst {
  print $i;
}
123456789
lanx@ubuntu:~$ perl
my $i=42;
for $i (1..9) {
  tst();
}
sub tst {
  print $i;
}
424242424242424242
[download]

we already had similar discussions.

Cheers Rolf

So loop "localisation" is different to the "localisation" done by local?

No, the difference you are seeing is because subs capture lexical vars but not package vars.