Yes, I know that. I guess I should have added a remark to the effect that I'm not implying that *test->{localsub} is shared across packages. I didn't want to formulate the code using vars or our because that wouldn't have been equivalent — the difference and key point of my argument is that *test->{localsub} is an unchecked use of a global that elides strictures. So I had to use a fully qualified global variable name instead; obviously, the package would have to change according to the context of the code.
Makeshifts last the longest.
In reply to Re^4: Is it possible to create a sub exclusive to a sub?
by Aristotle
in thread Is it possible to create a sub exclusive to a sub?
by punkish
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |