No, that only shows that there are two scopes total, not that for created two lexical scopes. You'd need
my @x; for (my @x) { my @x; }
Mine does show the same though. If for only created the scope int the curlier, my code wouldn't have died.
In reply to Re^5: Scope and references
by ikegami
in thread Scope and references
by {}think
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |