Re^3: Scope and references

I never realized that a simple loop like this ... actually allocated and destroyed a new array every time through the loop. Since you go around the loop twice, it seems like you don't "leave" the scope in which @a was delcared, so @a should still "be there" during the second iteration. I still don't get that.

In for(...) { ... } the curly braces define a block. Each time the loop iterates you re-enter that block. And every time you enter a block, you enter a new scope.

That is just the way it is, and the way it is meant to be.

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.

Comment on Re^3: Scope and references Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Scope and references by {}think (Sexton) on Jun 19, 2011 at 18:44 UTC
That was it! `for (my $i=0; $i <=1; $i++) { #new scope in brkts }` [download] I had always thought of the FOR loop as a single construct. I didn't realize that each time the control logic ($i++, etc.) is exectuted, you EXIT the brackets and lose that scope! But if you parse the code very precisely, that is literally what happens, so it now makes sense! Thank you BrowserUk! {}think; #Think outside of the brackets	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: Scope and references by {}think (Sexton) on Jun 22, 2011 at 02:33 UTC
So here was my misconception: I thought that the scope of a for loop was foreach (@a) { \|<==From HERE to HERE==>\| } and that you just bounced aroud INSIDE OF the brackets. But I guess every time you evaluated the control statement, you leave the brackets and you lose scope and re-enter it. I did read Coping with Scoping, and that deals with this exact situation. {}think; #Think outside of the brackets	[reply]
Re^5: Scope and references by Anonymous Monk on Jun 23, 2011 at 13:05 UTC
Hello {}think `$ perl -e " {}think; #Think outside of the brackets " Bareword found where operator expected at -e line 1, near "}think" (Missing operator before think?) syntax error at -e line 1, near "}think" Execution of -e aborted due to compilation errors.` [download] Nice try :)	[reply] [d/l]