Why would I look under either when trying to understand the strange behaviour of $a or $b?
There's nothing wrong with $a and $b. You can declare them with my, with local. They hold all kinds of scalar values and references. They're nice variables, get off their backs. :)
It's not like $| (ever try putting a reference in there?), or $_ (stomp stomp stomp stomp) or even $1 (Hey! It's readonly!) .
There's something wrong with sort. It uses these perfectly nice variables in strange and perverse ways so it's worth mentioning with sort -- let's mention it there. And there's something wrong with strict because it intentionally exempts $a and $b from stricture so that sort can get away with its perversity -- we should mention it there too.
But otherwise it's not the fault of the variables. Quit blaming the variables! :)
But if you want a footnote in perlvar I'm sure no-one would reject your patch, though.
In reply to Re: Re: Re: (re:x5 use strict....)$a and $b should be in perlvar
by clintp
in thread use strict won't require explicit name for all variables?
by Biker
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |