I'm wanting to use certain "semantically-rich" features or behaviors that I'm familiar with, in Perl. As it has still has a strong root in its origin of being a simple scripting language, it doesn't currently support semantically(?syntactically?)-structured, non-global functions nor shared, "subroutine-private", but intra-subroutine, sharable variables between subroutines that share an enclosing scope, for the duration of the enclosed scope. Rather than taking the position that perl was never meant to do anything so complex, therefore, it should die on attempts to do such things, I tend toward enhancing the language, with useful constructs or behaviors that it could come to share with more traditional, compiled, high-level languages.
While it is likely that either a property of "sub" or a different term (sublet? :-) ) could be used for sub routines that are lexically scoped in the same way "my"-labelled variables are. Perhaps it could be "so simple" as to use a syntax like: my sub foobar[(optionalproto)]{...}. (Dang, sorta liked sublets...).
It's not like providing (allowing & supporting) "lexically-scoped" subroutines should be so considered so radical -- they are the norm in most languages. Perl, because of it's origins as a scripting language wasn't perceived to need such subtleties as lexical scoping when it was first developed, because it wasn't designed to be a general-purpose high-level compiler-like language. It didn't even have subroutines at one point. But... when it got them, it only implemented one global name space for subroutines that exists to this day. One can have syntactic division of subroutines within the global name space by prepending package-names, but it's not the same as lexically scoped subroutines.
Don't you think it could be 'doable' -- at least, at first, within a simple case of subroutines being able to share local variables declared at the same level as the subroutines as is nearly the case here? I.e. the named subroutine is declared at the same level as variables it is accessing, with both being declared inside the same function.
For a previous poster, I tried moving the nested subroutine definition out a level, -- removing the enclosing brackets -- making them at the same level. It seems like that level of nesting should be straight forward, no?
Regarding your 'update' -- the fact that the nested subroutines are global isn't useful or desired behavior in this situation. I agree it is what the language has implemented at this point, but that doesn't mean a "my" keyword couldn't be added in front of a "sub" definition to simply allow those subroutines to only come into existence like their adjacent "my"-declared variables, no? It's a syntactic difference -- rather than forcing the user to use an anonymous subroutine with ref in a lexically scoped variable, wouldn't the code be more clear if I could use a named-lexically scoped subroutine name?
I don't see that requiring the extra syntax of making the subroutine 'anonymous', and storing it in a variable, then calling it through a variable could possibly make its more clear for someone reading the code. Neither, IMPO, is putting the function outside of the area where it was intended to be used. That only invites the possibility that later, I or some maintainer might try to call the 'helper function' from a context it was not designed to support. By declaring it within the subroutine, it emphasizes that is a subroutine-context-dependent helper routine, no? :-)
Do you think we could come up with a Perl "RFE" that could "swim"? :-)
Linda
In reply to Re^4: Perl scoping not logical...?
by perl-diddler
in thread Perl scoping not logical...?
by perl-diddler
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |