Which explains it, (though it doesn't exactly satisfy the concept of least surprise), as the globals also existed despite that I had created similarly named lexicals. Which, (apparently naively), I expected to override the globals at the local scope.I think that it's important to note that lexicals do override globals—more generally (and more precisely), that the variable declared later overrides the one declared earlier—unless you explicitly ask for globals. Of course, no one would expect $::foo to access a lexical. Similarly, since ${'foo'} requires us to look up a variable by name, rather than location, and since the only way to find variables by name is in the symbol table, we can't possibly 1 get a lexical this way.
(I know that you know this, but I worry about casual future readers thinking that you're suggesting that globals always override lexicals.)
1 As almut correctly points out below, “can't possibly” is almost never correct about Perl. I probably ought to have said “shouldn't”.
In reply to Re^4: Variable name
by JadeNB
in thread Variable name
by nsteiner
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |