Re^5: Closures and scope of lexicals

I didn't translate the first snippet. The question is about the second snippet. The OP asked if its behaviour is a quirk. I showed that it's not by showing that the behaviour is consistent across many languages.

Comment on Re^5: Closures and scope of lexicals

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Closures and scope of lexicals by LanX (Saint) on Oct 31, 2024 at 14:37 UTC
And I added that the consistency isn't 1to1 Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) see Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]
Re^7: Closures and scope of lexicals by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 31, 2024 at 14:39 UTC
Then you're wrong. The provided code is equivalent to the OP's, and the result is consistent.	[reply]
Re^8: Closures and scope of lexicals by LanX (Saint) on Oct 31, 2024 at 14:42 UTC
Saying Python's behavior is consistent to Perl's is at best an over simplification and can't be left uncommented. JS on the other side is very consistent to Perl, especially when using `let` Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) see Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply] [d/l]
Re^9: Closures and scope of lexicals by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 31, 2024 at 14:50 UTC
Re^10: Closures and scope of lexicals by LanX (Saint) on Oct 31, 2024 at 15:07 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here