use has it's own scope?

LanX has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

Hi in the following code does the declaration of $y happen in a different scope.

Is it documented behaviour?

`t_set.pl`

use strict;
use warnings;
use B::Deparse;

sub test {
   use set my $y =666;
   print $y;
}

#test();

print B::Deparse->new()->coderef2text(\&test);
[download]

`error`

Global symbol "$y" requires explicit package name at d:/exp/t_set.pl a
+borted due to compilation errors.
["set", 666]
[download]

`set.pm`

exec 't_set.pl' unless caller;

package set;
use strict;
use warnings;
use Data::Dump qw/dd pp/;



sub import {
   dd \@_;
}
1;
[download]

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)

Je suis Charlie!}

Comment on use has it's own scope? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: use has it's own scope? by Anonymous Monk on Aug 07, 2017 at 22:18 UTC
use docs say "It is exactly equivalent to `BEGIN { require Module; Module->import( LIST ); }`" so probably yes LIST has its own scope.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^2: use has it's own scope? by LanX (Saint) on Aug 07, 2017 at 22:35 UTC
Thanks for RTFM for me! ;) Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :) Je suis Charlie!}	[reply]
Re^3: use has it's own scope? by Eily (Monsignor) on Sep 06, 2017 at 09:43 UTC
FYI I wondered if B::Deparse could show this. The answer is yes, with level 5 of deparsing or higher, use statments will be translated into their equivalent BEGIN blocks: `perl -MO=Deparse,-x5 -e "use Set my $x = 12;" sub BEGIN { require Set; do { 'Set'->import(my $x = 12) }; } -e syntax OK` [download] I don't think the fact that the lexical has a scope even shorter than the BEGIN block changes anything though.	[reply] [d/l]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.