Re^3: Which "use" statements in a module do "bubble up" to the callers?

I believe that constants are implemented as functions and have package scope the same as other functions.

C:\Users\Bill\forums\monks>type scope.pl
use strict;
use warnings;
use constant PI => 3.14;
my $pi = PI;
package B{
    my $pi = PI;
}


C:\Users\Bill\forums\monks>perl scope.pl
Bareword "PI" not allowed while "strict subs" in use at scope.pl line 
+6.
Execution of scope.pl aborted due to compilation errors.
[download]

Bill

Comment on Re^3: Which "use" statements in a module do "bubble up" to the callers? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Which "use" statements in a module do "bubble up" to the callers? by Anonymous Monk on Aug 31, 2017 at 16:29 UTC
True. Also, the value of a constant is copied into the lexical pad of any code that uses it, just like a literal. And 22/7 is a slightly better approximation of π than 3.14, but 4*atan2(1,1) is much better.	[reply]
Re^5: Which "use" statements in a module do "bubble up" to the callers? by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Aug 31, 2017 at 16:48 UTC
... 22/7 is ... slightly better ... but 4atan2(1,1) is much better.* And my favorite, 355/113, "slide-rule pi", is right in between the two! Give a man a fish: `<%-{-{-{-<`	[reply] [d/l]
Re^6: Which "use" statements in a module do "bubble up" to the callers? by BillKSmith (Monsignor) on Sep 01, 2017 at 16:33 UTC
Even better: Use M_PI from POSIX instead of PI. Oops, that does not illustrate the scope problem. Bill	[reply]
Re^7: Which "use" statements in a module do "bubble up" to the callers? by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Sep 01, 2017 at 17:25 UTC
Re^8: Which "use" statements in a module do "bubble up" to the callers? (way OT) by Anonymous Monk on Sep 01, 2017 at 17:56 UTC
Re^7: Which "use" statements in a module do "bubble up" to the callers? by Anonymous Monk on Sep 01, 2017 at 16:50 UTC