Re: localizing lexical without messing with tie ?

You don't need local for lexicals.

Just shadow the name in the inner scope. So simple:

#! perl -slw
use strict;
{
    package NewStdScalar;
    require Tie::Scalar;

    our @ISA = qw(Tie::StdScalar);

    sub FETCH { return ${+shift}++ }
}
package main;

tie my $scalar, 'NewStdScalar';

$scalar=0;

print $scalar;             # 0

{
  my $scalar = "---";     # ---
  print $scalar;
}

print $scalar;             # 1

__END__
C:\test>junk34
0
---
1
[download]

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

RIP an inspiration; A true Folk's Guy

Comment on Re: localizing lexical without messing with tie ? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: localizing lexical without messing with tie ? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Sep 08, 2010 at 03:18 UTC
That's not equivalent since the inner variable isn't tied.	[reply]
Re^3: localizing lexical without messing with tie ? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Sep 08, 2010 at 03:21 UTC
`#! perl -slw use strict; { package NewStdScalar; require Tie::Scalar; our @ISA = qw(Tie::StdScalar); sub FETCH { return ${+shift}++ } } package main; tie my $scalar, 'NewStdScalar'; $scalar=0; print $scalar; # 0 { tie my $scalar, 'NewStdScalar'; $scalar = "---"; # --- print $scalar; } print $scalar; # 1 __END__ C:\test>junk34 0 --- 1` [download] Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. RIP an inspiration; A true Folk's Guy	[reply] [d/l]
Re^2: localizing lexical without messing with tie ? by LanX (Saint) on Sep 08, 2010 at 16:34 UTC
Trivially "shadowing" is not the point and not possible in my use case. I really need to localize a passed variable which is used in a passed codeblock, but your example introduces a completely new var. Cheers Rolf	[reply]