in reply to (jeffa) 3Re: seeking different ways to slice a 2-d array
in thread seeking different ways to slice a 2-d array

I use it any time I would have used "use vars" in the past - to access package globals. The nice thing is that I can scope where that access is legal. So, if I've got a package global %CACHE and two routines read_cache and write_cache I can: 
sub read_cache {
  our %CACHE;
  ...
}

sub write_cache {
  our %CACHE;
  ...
}

[download]
And they'll access the same variable. But if I start refering to %CACHE inside some other routine I get an error just like if %CACHE had been a lexical. I like that.

So, I guess I'm pretty happy with our. The only reason I want more education is that I learned about lexical and package variables as totally separate!!! and now they ain't... Which is cool, but also pretty bizarre.

-sam

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: (jeffa) 3Re: seeking different ways to slice a 2-d array
by Anonymous Monk on May 14, 2002 at 20:46 UTC
    I don't like to declare the same variable more than once. 
    sub read_cache {
  our %CACHE;
  ...
}

sub write_cache {
  our %CACHF;
  ...
}

    [download]
    Oops. It's so easy to slip... But on the other hand, you have to misspell the variable throughout all of &write_cache, which usually isn't too probable. But for short routines--like get/set routines--it's a not too far-fetched scenario.

    For those times I prefer to use 
    {
  our %CACHE;

  sub read_cache {
    ...
  }

  sub write_cache {
    ...
  }
}

    [download]
    The only reason I want more education is that I learned about lexical and package variables as totally separate!!! and now they ain't... Which is cool, but also pretty bizarre.

    I agree, it does indeed look like globals has become... something else. But you can relax--they haven't. They're still totally separate. What our() does is to declare a lexical alias for the global variable.

    Cheers,
    -Anomo
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom