I'd be curious what the exact thought behind this was. It makes sense to me: localizing most lexicals has no real value -- you can either redefine them via new lexical definitions of the same name in enclosed blocks; or you can pass specific overrides to functions further down the calling stack. That's a lot clumsier with single elements of arrays and hashes. So this use of local fits IMHO. I just wonder if it was designed that way of it it's an accident.
In reply to Re: Re: local element of my() array????
by steves
in thread local element of my() array????
by Anonymous Monk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |