package Our;
require strict; # Must be sure it has been loaded

sub import {
  if ($] < 5.006) {
    my $pkg = caller();
    *{"$pkg\::our"} = \*our;
    @_ = qw(strict vars);
    goto &strict::unimport;
  }
}

sub our {
}

1;
__END__
=head1 NAME

Our - pragma to gracefully degrade 'our' on older Perl's.

=head1 SYNOPSIS

  use strict;
  use Our;    # Must appear after strict
  our($foo);

=head1 DESCRIPTION

On older versions of Perl this undoes strict vars, and imports an
our function.  This allows modules to be developed on newer Perl's
using 'our' yet still run on older installations.

=head1 BUGS

This provides backwards but not forwards compatibility.  Caveat
developer.
[download]

use strict;
use Our;
our ($foo);
$foo = "hello\n";
print $foo;
[download]

There is a neat "feature" I was missing. The following code does something interesting:

use strict;
package Foo;
our $foo = "Hello world\n";

package Foo::Bar;
print $foo;

package Foo::Baz;
print $foo;
[download]

While the small module I supplied solves the main backwards compatibility issue, there is no way to tie out older Perl's to such (ab)use.

I would still recommend use vars over this.

First, I don't like the idea of a module that rather sneakilly sometimes turns off use strict "vars". If your development moves to a pre-5.6 version of Perl, you could easily not notice that your innocuous use Our has now disabled your use strict.pm until you waste a couple of days chasing the kind of bug that use strict.pm makes obvious (the reason you are supposed to use strict.pm).

I certainly don't consider this risk worth the very minor speed improvement which is the only advantage to our over use vars.

Also, if you are supporting pre-5.6 versions of Perl, you will be testing with pre-5.6 which may require some development in pre-5.6 versions which you shouldn't be doing without use strict.pm.

So my problems with this approach are quite small but I consider them huge compared to the tiny, tiny "problem" that they solve -- being able to use our instead of use vars. If you are firmly into 5.6-and-later Perl and choose to use our, then these provide a nice way to be pollite to people who aren't.

I will continue to do use vars until Perl supports non-blocked compile-time code (or another soltution) for being able to conditionally use our (or until pre-5.6 Perl becomes old enough that I never run into it anymore).

        - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")

You are wrong that a speed improvement is the only reason to use our over use vars. (In fact I am not absolutely positive that it is always a win.)

The difference with our is that the declaration is lexical, not global. So using our in 3 functions becomes an alternative to a global that is globally accessible, or a private block with a lexical variable.

Personally I don't consider the win over use vars to be compelling. In fact if you are going to be sharing a variable in several places, I don't like having to synchronize the declarations. Hence for most purposes I actively prefer use vars.

However that is an opinion decidedly at odds with many other people. Hence the above may prove useful if (unlike me) you are in a predominantly 5.6 environment and like our.

Actually, I think our has one other advantage over use vars, aside from the very minor speed improvement. With our, as with my, declaration and initialization can be done in one step:

my $num = 7;
our $str = 'Hello';
[download]

whereas with use vars, declaration and initialization must always be separate steps:

use vars qw/ $str /;
$str = 'Hello';
[download]