The term "lexical" is messed up tho.
No. Maybe imprecise since there two kinds of lexically-scoped variables, but not messed up.
I attempt to stay as close to perlglossary as possible.
Don't do that by by reinventing what global means (or basing yourself on a passage that does that). *That* would be messed up.
$_ and similar have been called superglobals.
Seeking work! You can reach me at ikegami@adaelis.com
In reply to Re^8: PadWalker's closed_over - but for our variables?
by ikegami
in thread PadWalker's closed_over - but for our variables?
by LanX
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |