Re: Defining a sub within a sub: OK?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Defining a sub within a sub: OK? by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Oct 14, 2009 at 21:59 UTC
Your code does not define a sub within a sub, but a sub within a code block. Actually, the sub `level1` is defined (and called) within an explicit scope, not within a code block. Since there are no lexicals also defined within the scope and referred to by the subroutine, the scope has no effect; subroutines themselves are globally scoped.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: Defining a sub within a sub: OK? by jwkrahn (Abbot) on Oct 14, 2009 at 22:12 UTC
Subroutine names are package variables and therefore not "globally scoped". Only certain Perl variables fit the definition of "globally scoped". the sub level1 is defined within an explicit scope, not within a code block. Basic BLOCKs	[reply]
Re^4: Defining a sub within a sub: OK? by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Oct 14, 2009 at 22:50 UTC
What I meant by 'globally scoped' was 'accessible from any point of execution within the program', and package variables do fit this definition. I agree with jwkrahn's point about the 'code block' (as defined in the referenced discussion of blocks). What I thought was meant was a 'code block' of the sort associated with sort and other such built-ins, e.g., `my @sorted = sort { $a <=> $b } @unsorted;` (Hang on, I may be experiencing a 'lobe block' ... )	[reply] [d/l]