Re^3: static storage in a local subroutine?

jeffguy,
Ok, there are a few things to keep in mind here. The first is that named sub declarations are scoped to the current package. The only way to have a lexical sub is for it to be an anonymous code ref. The second thing to keep in mind is that program flow never returns to a point above the sub declaration to even attempt to redefine the sub - it is a naked block.

If this doesn't answer your question, ask something a bit more specific. Better yet, play around and see if you can figure it out for yourself.

Cheers - L~R

Comment on Re^3: static storage in a local subroutine?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: static storage in a local subroutine? by jeffguy (Sexton) on Nov 23, 2005 at 14:52 UTC
I'm with you now. When I first looked at your code, I was thinking it was a chunk to be embedded in a subroutine, a la `sub test{ { my $cnt = 1; sub get_count { return $cnt++; } } print get_count(); } print "test 4: ".test(4)."\n"; print "test 7: ".test(7)."\n";` [download] so I was seeing get_count() should be defined repeatedly. As you point out, since it is named, it is defined only once. Your code shows the much more obvious and clear way of doing it -- define get_count() in a block outside any code. Your explanations and examples were very helpful. Thanks a bunch!	[reply] [d/l]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: static storage in a local subroutine?
by jeffguy (Sexton) on Nov 23, 2005 at 14:52 UTC

sub test{
  {
    my $cnt = 1;
    sub get_count {
        return $cnt++;
    }
  }
  print get_count();
}
print "test 4: ".test(4)."\n";
print "test 7: ".test(7)."\n";
[download]

As you point out, since it is named, it is defined only once.
*Your* code shows the much more obvious and clear way of doing it -- define get_count() in a block outside any code.

[reply]
[d/l]