Re^2: My globals are visable; but undef'ed

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: My globals are visable; but undef'ed by Joost (Canon) on Jul 31, 2008 at 20:05 UTC
Well, there are enough cases where package variables are the only thing that works (mostly cases where perl insists on making package vars special). But your complaint isn't about that, exactly. Me, I just use our as a neater replacement for vars (IOW, I practically always just use our at the top of the script - and I prefer it over vars for that just because it looks better). "What should it profit a man, if he should win a flame war, yet lose his cool?"	[reply]
Re^4: My globals are visable; but undef'ed by tilly (Archbishop) on Jul 31, 2008 at 21:30 UTC
I grant that it looks prettier, but if you're going to be sharing variables between scripts, it is distinctly worse. Within a script it doesn't matter which you use, but it is probably better to use my instead.	[reply]
Re^5: My globals are visable; but undef'ed by Joost (Canon) on Jul 31, 2008 at 21:37 UTC
I don't want this to turn into a long discussion, and I agree that using globals/package vars for sharing data is usually not a good idea (though it does work very well for most situations where you'd otherwise use "singletons" - especially when you can Export the variables). But I don't see what lexicals have to do with the post you referenced above. "What should it profit a man, if he should win a flame war, yet lose his cool?"	[reply]
Re^6: My globals are visable; but undef'ed by tilly (Archbishop) on Jul 31, 2008 at 21:51 UTC
Re^7: My globals are visable; but undef'ed by Joost (Canon) on Jul 31, 2008 at 22:02 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here