in reply to Re: How is it that I can see this package variable from another package without fully-qualifying its name?
in thread How is it that I can see this package variable from another package without fully-qualifying its name?

I don't know exactly what you mean when you say that an our binding "respects scope".

I do see that the declaration and definition of $var is at file scope. My understanding is that "package Bar" changes the package from Foo to Bar. Maybe I'm confusing "change of package" with "change of scope"?

I see that the following works as I'd expect:

#!/usr/bin/env perl use Modern::Perl; { package Foo; our $var = 42; # This is $Foo::var. } { package Bar; # This works, as expected. say "\$Foo::var: $Foo::var"; #say "\$var: $var"; # Fails, as expected. } #say "\$var: $var"; # Fails, as expected. say "\$Foo::var: $Foo::var";

Does that look like the correct way to keep packages separate in a single file?

(I realize that everything would also work as expected if I kept each package in its own module. And it would make them easily testable as well.)

  • Comment on Re^2: How is it that I can see this package variable from another package without fully-qualifying its name?
  • Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: How is it that I can see this package variable from another package without fully-qualifying its name?
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Apr 24, 2011 at 22:16 UTC
    Maybe I'm confusing "change of package" with "change of scope"?

    Exactly! The package keyword doesn't introduce a new scope for my or our bindings. Only a new file or curly braces do.

    Keeping each package in a separate file is generally the best approach, but using curly braces to isolate packages works well too. Perl 5.14 has a new package NAME { ... } syntax to make this even easier.