... doesn't it make sense that it should check that scope for that name already existing in it?
I don't see how that follows. To me, that's like saying that exists on a hash key should return a different answer depending on how many different values that hash has had associated with the key.
You can convince me that having to enable both strict and warnings is silly busywork (because it is), but adding features from warnings to strict makes little sense to me.
In reply to Re^5: Help! My variables are jumping off a cliff!
by chromatic
in thread Help! My variables are jumping off a cliff!
by oko1
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |