Re^3: Why callbacks?

I presume this was asked before I moved the brace, but even then no. The scalar would have (which is why I made the correction), but the subroutine sticks around (they're not lexically declared). Had I done this:

{
my $returned_data = [];
my $callback = sub { push @{ $returned_data }, $_[0] };
}
something_wanting_callback( $callback );
[download]

Then yes, that coderef would have gone out of scope.

Comment on Re^3: Why callbacks? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Why callbacks? by pileofrogs (Priest) on Mar 30, 2007 at 17:32 UTC
So, all subrutines are in effect global? Huh.. I didn't know that. -Pileofrogs In Other News: Whoever keeps downvoting me, please tell me what it is that you don't like... I can't get better if you don't tell me what's wrong...	[reply]
Re^5: Why callbacks? by Fletch (Bishop) on Mar 30, 2007 at 17:41 UTC
Named subs all reside in the symbol table of the active package when they're declared (if the name is unqualified, that is; it's also possible to stick a sub into another package's namespace by fully qualifying the name: `sub Other::Package::foo { ... }`). It's also possible to get a sub which is only useable within a particular lexical scope by storing a coderef in a lexical scalar. `{ my $private_sub = sub { print "I'M IN UR SCOPE HIDIN UR LEXICALZ\n" } ## Can be called here $private_sub->( ); } ## Can't call it here` [download]	[reply] [d/l] [select]