From your other post:
If package touched lexical variables it would probably confuse newbies into thinking that namespaces and lexical scopes have something to do with each other.
and above:
If you're defining multiple packages in the same file, it's a good idea to define them each within their own {...} block, so they don't accidentally leak variables.
Yes, agreed. In the future I'll be putting lexical scope around my package scopes. And in the event I want a variable private to the package scope, I can use my, and because of my improved practice, not worry about it. (Now is a good place for the cargo cult folks to interject.)

I was wondering though, why both scope types have to be completely independent? Or rather, why we have to carry around the idea of multiple types of scope boundaries in relation to lexical variable? In my own head, a scope boundary is always a lexical scope boundary. Wrong as it is, I want to think that my $var declared inside a package scope isn't implicitly available outside. If I need it available outside, I should declare it outside, or otherwise arrange for it to be visible.

I'm never concerned about variables leaking in, and often depend on it, so it seems this small conceptual tweak would save me some register space in my head when writing code. (It's harder to keep track of two similar but distinct items, compared to two completely different items. Compare "the electron and the proton" vs. "this electron and that electron" -- if only electrons came in colors.)

If the idea of "a package scope boundary also being a lexical scope boundary" were actually implemented, would it cause any programs to break? (And if it did, would they have been correct programs anyway?) I'm not saying it's a trivial change, as suddenly package scope is a lexical scope. So, theoretically speaking, are there any downsides to proper nesting of package and lexical scope?

-QM
--
Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of

In reply to Re^2: my $var masked across package scope? by QM
in thread my $var masked across package scope? by QM

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.