I think one should always give the source when citing a quote.

I did.

Your definition seems to say that a function using global variables

Odd. Did I even even provide a definition?

I'm certain I didn't come remotely close to opining about whether globals are captured or not.

And you seem to be referring to package vars, which aren't global. Only punctuation vars and a few others deserve that name (ARGV, STDOUT, ENV, SIG, etc).

> I did.

Mea culpa, my phones display is broken.

Still that's the opinion of a WP-author, not an original source or "historical ... definition"

> Odd. Did I even even provide a definition?

Well you literally said so:

> > > historical and generally accepted definition.

and then

> > > "whose non-local variables have been bound"

and package vars are "non-local".

And than I pondered about the possible meaning of "binding" in Perl.

to be more explicit

:~$ perl -MO=Concise,Bla::func -E'package Bla; sub func { say $x }' 
Bla::func:
5  <1> leavesub[1 ref] K/REFC,1 ->(end)
... yadda yadda 
3              <#> gvsv[*Bla::x] s ->4                   # <--- is thi
+s a binding?
-e syntax OK
[download]

> And you seem to be referring to package vars, which aren't global.

Oh my holy lord of the nitpickers ... the full qualified names are globally accessible.

This means that package vars can be manipulated outside the sub.

> Only punctuation vars and a few others deserve that name (ARGV, STDOUT, ENV, SIG, etc).

And those are just implemented as package variables in main:: , b/c any other surrounding package declaration is just ignored.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
see Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

Still that's the opinion of a WP-author, not an original source or "historical ... definition"

No, Wikipedia pages are not one author's opinion. And did you read the page? It gives the history of the term.

Well you literally said so:

No, as you said, that came from Wikipedia.

And than I pondered about the possible meaning of "binding" in Perl.

Fair. But not fair to say I claimed package vars are captured.

Oh my holy lord of the nitpickers

You are wrong.

In normal circumstances, I call file-scoped my vars global, and so do many others. And others do the same for package vars.

Neither are actually global, but that's perfectly fine in *those* situations. But clarity *is* required here.

To what combination of file-scoped my var, package vars, and actual globals are referring when you say globals?

And let's not forget that what appears to your example of a global variable uses our, which creates a lexically-scoped variable.

So yeah, if you're going to ponder what constitutes a capture, requesting some specificity isn't nitpicking.

And those are just implemented as package variables in main::

True, but irrelevant. What makes them global is that they can be accessed from anywhere. This is not true of arbitrary variables in the root/main namespace.