I don't get it. What's wrong with state?

Using normal closures, I can do:

{
    my $closure; 
    sub x1{ $closure = shift if @_; $closure } 
    sub x2{ $closure = shift if @_; $closure } 
};;

print x1( 123 ); print x2(); print x2(456); print x1();;
123
123
456
456
[download]

Or I can do:

{ 
    local our $closure; 
    sub x1{ $closure = shift if @_; $closure } 
    sub x2{ $closure = shift if @_; $closure } 
};;

print x1( 123 ); print x2(); print x2(456); print x1();;
123
123
456
456
[download]

Or:

sub x1{ our $closure = shift if @_; $closure } sub x2{ our $closure = 
+shift if @_; $closure };;

print x1( 123 ); print x2(); print x2(456); print x1();;
123
123
456
456
[download]

Try that with state:

sub x1{ state $closure = shift if @_; $closure } 
sub x2{ state $closure = shift if @_; $closure };;

print x1( 123 ); print x2(); print x2(456); print x1();;
123
Use of uninitialized value in print at (eval 22) line 1, <STDIN> line 
+14.

456
123
[download]

Or:

sub x1{ state our $closure = shift if @_; $closure } sub x2{ state our
+ $closure = shift if @_; $closure };;
No such class our at (eval 23) line 1, near "{ state our"
No such class our at (eval 23) line 1, near "{ state our"
[download]

So, three different ways to do something that works; and a new mechanism specifically designed to replace them that doesn't.