in reply to my $var masked across package scope?

Yes, my variables declared at the highest level have file scope. The solution is to use blocks for packages: 
{   package Foo;

    my $package = __PACKAGE__;
}

{   package Bar;

    my $package = __PACKAGE__;
};

[download]

Or, in recent Perls: 

package Foo {
    my $package = __PACKAGE__;
};

package Bar {
    my $package = __PACKAGE__;
}

[download]
لսႽ† ᥲᥒ⚪⟊Ⴙᘓᖇ Ꮅᘓᖇ⎱ Ⴙᥲ𝇋ƙᘓᖇ

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: my $var masked across package scope?
by QM (Parson) on May 09, 2013 at 14:10 UTC
    Thanks.

    I must say, though I don't fully grok the different scopes, my tiny brain wants package scope to be its own lexical scope too. At least, if I redeclare a my variable that exists outside the package scope, I don't want the warning. If I want to access that farther-away variable, I should have that option too, as long as I haven't stepped on it with a closer my. (This is the way it works crossing lexical boundaries, it's just that package isn't a lexical boundary.)

    Are there any benefits to having package not be a lexical boundary? (Just idle curiosity, as there's bleep-all chance of changing it now :D )

    -QM
    --
    Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

      "Are there any benefits to having package not be a lexical boundary?"

      It's sometimes handy to switch package mid-sub...

      use v5.12;
use Data::Dumper (); # not importing Dumper function here

sub d
{
    package Data::Dumper; # please don't clobber @_
    local *Indent = local *Terse = 1;
    say Dumper(@_);
}

d [1, 2, 3];
d {foo => 123};

      [download]

      Also if package touched lexical variables it would probably confuse newbies into thinking that namespaces and lexical scopes have something to do with each other.

      package Cow { use Moo; has name => (is => 'lazy', default => sub { 'Mooington' }) } say Cow->new->name
      /div
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom