I believe it is bad practice to have a subroutine inside a subroutine (for the reason you ran into). It makes you think that it is lexically scoped when it actually gets parsed at compile-time.
What problem do you have that you need to have two subroutines with the same name?
And you didn't even know bears could type.
In reply to Re: Scope of subroutines with same name
by Lawliet
in thread Scope of subroutines with same name
by atemon
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |